20160405 Ver 2_Meeting Notes_20171024

Meeting Notes
Date: October 24, 2017
Type of Site: NCDMS Stream and Wetland Site
Prepared By: Mac Haupt
Sponsor/Provider: Restoration Systems, EPR, Axiom
Meeting Type: Field Site Review
NCDMS ID Number:
Project Name: Alliance
County: Johnston
USACE Action ID Number:
HUC and Basin: Neuse - 03020201
NCDWR Project Number: 20160405
Coordinates: `N `W
Attendees:
EPR- Kevin T., Tom Barrett
Axiom- Grant, Andrew
COE- Sam, Kim
DMS- Lindsay
WRC- Travis
RS- Raymond
Notes, Sketch, etc.:
The purpose of the site visit was to finalize the JD call in the wetland/stream preservation headwaters and look over the
remainder of the site as per IRT.
The visit started looking at Trib 3 and 4 in the headwaters. COE needed to finalize JD and rest of folks wanted to verify
proposed channel areas (including pink channels on geo referenced map that Raymond sent out before meeting).
My comments: what I was looking at were the two valleys that they proposed. Also, wanted to look at all the "extra"
identified "pink" channels. Also, wanted to see if the valleys came together and empty out into the field. And, do they
form one channel or two? Additionally, once the channel leaves the woods, does the drainage area provide enough
energy to build sinuosity at the top?
After looking at the portion in the woods, I believe there is one definitive valley, the other valley with the ditched stream
does not look as though it was a completely separate valley. More topo info would help. I said I thought DWR could
give headwater valley credit for streams, but not credit for all the small side channels. Also, we would not give any
credit for the ditched section of upper Trib 4.
The COE stated that the area is more of a wetland than a stream and they would not likely give credit for streams for
this area. Kim and Sam went over to lower Trib 3 with Grant to finalize JD call.
Travis stated that the whole headwater wetland guidance was an effort by Dave Lekson to limit stream jurisdictional
calls in ditched/drained wetlands. In addition, the 30 day flow was primarily for coastal systems not for other piedmont
or mountain stream systems.
Raymond heard that input and it seems will remove stream preservation credit in the next iteration of the mit plan.
As far as the two parallel channels with sinuosity, Kevin T. maintained that the data in the mit plan, and drainage areas
support two single thread channels. I need to review the mit plan (have not reviewed as of this site visit) to verify this
position.
We did not visit the rest of the site, I did not need to see the remainder of the site, had seen it before.
Action Items:
Page 1

Notes, Sketch, etc.:
Page 2