20161271 Ver 2_CSX-Swift Creek field notes, 10-23-17_20171023

Meeting Notes
Date: October 23, 2017
Type of Site: Permittee Responsible Mitigation Site
Prepared By: Mac Haupt
Sponsor/Provider: Palustrine Group, Wood
Meeting Type: Field Site Review
NCDMS ID Number:
Project Name: CSX -Swift Creek site
County: Edgecombe
USACE Action ID Number:
HUC and Basin: Tar -Pamlico - 03020103
NCDWR Project Number: 20161271
Coordinates: 'N `W
Attendees:
Wood- Will Rector (Columbia), Josh Witherspoon (Durham)
Palustrine- Norton
DWR- Katie, Jennifer, Chonticha
COE- Tasha
Notes, Sketch, etc.:
The purpose of the site visit was to visit areas, especially the stream preservation segments, we had not visited on the
previous site visit.
Initially, we went to the section of A2 that was bisected by the access road, with enhancement above the road and
preservation below the road. The intent was to visit Tribs A3, G, and C and walk in a big circle to cover the reaches.
Became apparent relatively quickly that most of the channels which were identified as preservation were ditches that
connected/drained the wetland sloughs in the extensive Swift Creek floodplain. While Trib A3 was not as ditched it was
very straight and did appear to have been manipulated in the past. These reaches are not stream preservation
reaches.
Next we walked up the Enhancement reach of A2. What we found were areas of no apparent channel but very nice
wetlands, areas of ditched channel, and other areas (below beaver dam) which had definite stream channel
characteristics. This reach was proposed at E2, it would probably be E2 but at a higher ratio (perhaps). We walked to
the till we reached the beaver dam where the channel took a hard 90 degree turn to the left (as walking North). It was
undecided as to how to deal with the beaver dam. It was currently drained and represented the bottom of reach Al.
We then went to Trib H., which was a more natural channel, of moderate to low quality with some areas of sand mining
adjacent and in the channel. This reach would probably be 10:1 at best even with some work where they mined the
channel at one spot.
Then we went to B1 which was a small short preservation reach that was to connect to the restoration reach B2 through
the beaver impoundment. This could be a a restoration reach that empties into the valley, or a constructed B2 if that is
what they do.
Next we traveled to reach 11-2. This reach was ditched as well. No stream preservation credit.
We then went back to B2 and walked down to where the road bisects B2 and Al. The B2 which had been flooded in
the past (because of the road and beaver) was not as flooded, however, very mucky. I would recommend they not
Action Items:
Next we walked Al below the road. It was much drier and this area was channelized with spoil piles on the side. The
channelization was not very deep, 1-2 feet. I believe this reach is doable from a channel construction perspective. This
reach we followed down to the beaver pond at the top of the E2 reach of A2. The reach got wetter as we neared the
beaver pond. I had stated in the mit plan comments I wanted gauges in areas of wetlands where they are building
Page 1

Notes, Sketch, etc.:
Page 2