20170239 Ver 1_RE Cates Farm visit 2315_20160225

Wanucha, Dave
From: Bailey, David E SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:44 PM
To: Underwood, Chris
Cc: Price, Gregory W; Wanucha, Dave
Subject: RE: Cates Farm visit 2/3/15 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Thanks for the minutes, Chris. My additions/comments from the Corps perspective are included below:
SW UT: No additional comments.
SE UT: No additional comments about the upper section. The remaining reach primarily consisted of highly incised
stream segments, with occasional short segments of inedium quality stream with some signs of cattle access. The
primary issues in these segments include sediment loading, cattle and related instability and nutrient loading, and
homogenous stream habitat.
NE UT and small additional UT: No additional comments.
Stream to the west of the NE UT: The upper section was the most appropriate for preservation along this reach,
although existing buffer width on the east side is a concern. The middle section wetland complex was fairly high quality
with the exception of Microstegium growth. We discussed whether a wetland delineation was necessary in this area if
preservation is pursued. The lower section consisted of dry, potentially intermittent stream segments with limited
stream habitat heterogeneity and invasive species growth. The suitability of any of the lower section for preservation is
doubtful, but I will check with Todd Tugwell for consistency purposes if NCDOT decides to pursue this section. As
discussed, these channel segments disappear for several hundred feet and only reappear for a short segment between
the power line easement and the stream confluence.
NE UT below powerline easement: My only addition is to reiterate that the last 100+ feet are deeply incised/channelized
and have low aquatic function.
North Bank of Mill Creek: No additional comments related to the stream/habitat characterization. We discussed the
suitability of preservation credit for only preserving one side of the stream bank. My initial thoughts are that
preservation of both banks may be necessary for generating any mitigation credit. However, I will discuss with Todd
Tugwell re: consistency.
Farthest west UT: Nice stream. No additional comments.
Stream below the power line ROW and just west of the pump station: No additional comments related to the
stream/habitat characterization. The upper segment may be suitable for enhancement due to lack of wide, contiguous
buffer. The stream channel itself in this location was in good shape and showed no signs of cattle access. The lower
section was a potential candidate for restoration, however this may be limited by the elevation of the receiving water
stream bed and necessary step down. The main issues for the lower section are sediment loading from bank erosion
and habitat homogeneity.
Thanks for involving the Corps in this processes early. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http://regulatory.usacesurvey.com/.
-----Original Message-----
From: Underwood, Chris [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 4:55 PM
To: Bailey, David E SAW; Wanucha, Dave
Cc: Price, Gregory W
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Cates Farm visit 2/3/15
Hey Guys,
The following is my recollection of yesterday's meeting at Cates Farm.
Before we looked at the streams, introductions were made and the project was discussed along with the map.
The first site we looked at was the SW UT that we proposed for enhancement. The stream flows from off site to Mill
Creek. There is a flood plain wetland at the upper end that will be contained within the easement. On the day of the
visit, there were no cattle in the adjacent field and the stream didn't show any active degradation. There have been
cattle in the field before and the landowner was moving them into the field on the following day. The stream itself was
in fair shape with a few areas of active erosion as well as areas where rubble and cobble made up the bottom. This site
had three invasive species: multiflora rose, honeysuckle, and privet. Enhancement methods will include fencing, planting
the riparian area, and getting rid of the invasive species.
The second site was the SE UT on the eastern side of the property. This tributary flows north into Mill Creek and is a
headwater tributary. The upper reach, nearly half of the length, had no discernible channel. The next quarter of the
stream was highly incised. This section wasn't useful for preservation or enhancement. The first three quarters of the
stream had a buffer less than 30 feet and abutted the neighboring subdivision. The remaining reach had some

enhancement potential at a lesser ratio. There was signs of cattle activity on this reach. I will return here with our
engineers to determine what can be done and to get the length of the enhancement reach.
We broke for lunch after this site.
The first site after lunch we looked at was the NE UT and we proposed preservation for it. The stream was in fair shape
with a wooded riparian area, rubble/cobble bottom with some sediment, and small areas of erosion. The banks were
fairly low with a few incised areas. There was a small reach coming in from the west that joined this stream just south of
the easement line. This stream had no potential due to its length and the fact that it was in worse shape than the
receiving stream.
The next stream was to the west of the NE UT and we proposed preservation. It had a nice, intact, upper reach that ran
into a braided wetland system. After the wetland system, the channel continued and eventually disappeared. The upper
reach sparked some discussion about its effectiveness as mitigation and whether it was jurisdictional. Without running
any numbers on it, it appeared jurisdictional. Dave Bailey said it was barely jurisdictional. I asked if we impacted would
we have to mitigate for it. He answered yes, probably 2:1. Dave Wanucha really liked this reach and said this is the type
of stream we should preserve and it's good to protect streams at their sources. This stream is also a headwater stream
and is wooded the entire length. The west side of the stream had the better forest. I will measure the length of the
upper reach as well as the valley length of the wetland. I will also measure the reach where the channel continues and
determine where it becomes intermittent and where it becomes ephemeral. (Leilani asked about possible mitigation for
an intermittent stream).
The next site we looked at was below Duke Power's easement and was after the confluence of the previous two streams
and is proposed for preservation. This stream was in fair shape just after the confluence with a forested buffer (the
western forest being the best) and stable, cobble bottom. There was one spring and related wetland on the east bank
below the confluence. As the stream neared the confluence with Mill Creek, the banks became steeper and incised and
was straightened for the last 100 feet or so.
The next section of stream observed was the north bank of Mill Creek. It is a common piedmont stream with incised
banks. The bottom varied from sand/silt to cobble/rubble to some bedrock. There was also beaver activity noted.
NCDOT currently holds the northern bank only. We didn't have the opportunity to acquire the southern bank due the
early acquisition of ROW. We will pursue that with the landowner when the road is in the planning stages. The current
landowner is very conservation minded, but we can't guarantee anything pertaining to the southern bank. There is some
opportunity for enhancement on this reach: clearing of a rather large log jam and beaver dam and removal of old bridge
abutments. Each of these factors are causing the banks to erode. At present we are asking for preservation for this
reach. The northern buffer has some of the best looking trees on the whole site and our easement is supported by
another easement.
The next UT we visited is the farthest west on the north side of Mill Creek. It was the best stream that we looked at that
day. The stream had low banks and an easily accessible floodplain and a mostly cobble/rubble bottom with a little

bedrock as grade control. The forested buffer was very good with mature hardwoods on each side and % of the
watershed is contiguous forest. We proposed preservation for this stream.
The last stream we visited was below the power line ROW and just west of the pump station. We proposed
enhancement for this UT. The stream went from ephemeral to intermittent to perennial with a wetland area just above
the perennial mark. The upper section had low banks with a sand and cobble bottom. The lower section had deeply
incised banks with a cobble and sand bottom. The buffer was narrow to non-existent. The upper section was OK for
enhancement with a replanted buffer but the bottom needed some restoration work. This consisted of potentially
bringing up the slope, sloping back the banks, and planting the riparian buffer. I will bring our engineers to this site to
determine the best course of action. Dave Wanucha commented that this stream would be a good candidate for
restoration throughout the reach.
A demonstrable threat for preservation was talked about quite a bit. The demonstrable threat to the whole northern
side of Mill Creek is development.
See if this is like anything you remember. If I left out anything or added something that wasn't there, let me know.
Tha n ks.
Chris
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE