20061334 Ver 2_Mitigation Site Visit_20080324

200Ce 1'5 5 4 v - 'Z
March 24, 2008
Memorandum
To: Guy Pearce
From: Tammy Hill
Eric Kulz
Subject: Comments on NCEEP Restoration Site Visits - 3/19/08
Guy;
Thanks for the opportunity to visit the sites last week. Our comments on each of the sites are
included below.
Harrell Sit - Edaecombe Count
ream
In general the stream appeared to be in pretty good shape. Some downcutting did appear to be
occurring in Reach 1 (Bc section), and one area of bank erosion was noted in Reach 3, where
floodwater re-entered the channel. The stream appears to be transporting fairly large amounts of
sediment from the agricultural fields upstream, and several mid-channel bars were observed.
Some grass was observed growing within the stream channel, likely a result of the drought.
However, the stream exhibited strong flow except for the lowest portion of reach 4, where some
backwater from the Swift Creek floodplain was occurring.
The riparian areas have good microtopography. We appreciate the use of the ditch treatment
pools, as these should improve water quality in the stream. We hope to see these vegetated with
wetland vegetation once the growing season begins.
Wetland
Based on soil saturation and small amounts of standing water in depressions observed during the
visit, it appears that the site is likely achieving wetland hydrology. Newly planted vegetation had
been impacted by last year's drought, so it was not possible to assess the long-term likelihood of
success. Supplemental planting will be necessary, and we'll look forward to future monitoring
results to show wetland vegetation becoming established as the drought (hopefully) eases.
Anderson Swamp Site - Edaecombe Count
Wetland
Dogfennel, which grows in drier conditions than many other wetland plants, was observed on the
site. This isn't necessarily an issue, but I take it as a hint to watch the hydrology results. The
drought reduced the hydrology of many wetlands last year, so it was difficult to evaluate success,
but monitoring results showed borderline hydrology and one gauge that did not meet 85% of the
reference.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://ncwaterquality.org/wetiands
IV
NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
Conoconnara Site - Halifax Count
Stream
This was a very interesting site. The stream was generally a low gradient system and looked
quite stable. Flowing water was observed in over 90% of the stream length observed. There was
outstanding microtopography in the riparian areas, and the stream and wetland complex is going
to result in some good habitat once the site becomes wooded.
The only issue of concern noted was the presence of two 90-degree bends in the stream channel.
These appeared stable, but they should be monitored.
Wetland
Preserved wetland areas appeared to be high quality. Enhancement areas contained many
trees, giving these areas a head start on ecosystem development. Herbaceous wetland
vegetation was filling in the areas that had been cleared near the stream restoration. Good
microtopography and an abundance of water were observed in the enhancement and
preservation sections. The restoration area had recently been treated with herbicide, so it could
not be adequately evaluated yet. We'll watch for its progress over time.
Greaorv Site - Halifax Count
Stream
The stream channel appeared stable, and flow was observed in most areas observed. The
primary issue at the Gregory Site is the presence of excessive vegetation (cattails) growing in the
stream channel at a number of locations. These areas should be monitored carefully, as the
vegetation has the potential to divert the stream flow, resulting in the water trying to cut an
alternate channel. Some vegetation control may be necessary.
Wetland
The site was densely covered with weedy shrubs, but they did not appear to be interfering with
tree growth. Tree survival and growth appeared likely to meet success criteria. Wetland herbs
were also present. A significant section of the site appeared to be drier than desirable (around
well #9 and the surrounding area). Since the site is now in monitoring year 4, it could be useful to
look at hydrology trends over time in case there may be issues that could be addressed.
Thanks for the opportunity to visit the sites and comment. We certainly enjoy working with you
toward the success of mitigation in NC!
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://ncwaterquality.org/wetiands