20171200 Ver 1_Field visit November 20-21, 2017 Middle Neuse Umbrella Field Notes_20171120

Meeting Notes
Date: November 20, 2017
Type of Site: Bank Stream and Wetland Site
Prepared By: Mac Haupt
Sponsor/Provider: Weyerhaeuser
Meeting Type: Field Site Review
NCDMS ID Number:
Project Name: Middle Neuse Umbrella
County: Beaufort
USACE Action ID Number:
HUC and Basin: Neuse - 03020202
NCDWR Project Number:
Coordinates: I ON °W
Attendees:
COE- Todd, Kyle
DWR- Anthony
WRC- Travis, Maria
KH- Tara, Darren Pait
Weyerhauser- Doug H., Mary Beth?, Darrell?
Coggin Asset Mgmt- Daniel
Notes, Sketch, etc.:
These notes were from memory 2 weeks ago...
Site visits in order, November 20th:
1.Craven 30- this site had a good signature of Masontown coming up into the reach. I believe most of site looked like it
could be a headwater or 1st order stream restoration. It did have a trib (ditch) coming in from the south that looked
prominent on the lidar. Also, there was a connection to a relic oxbow looking feature on one of the northern tribs.
These two areas I thought should be looked at to include. Also, I believe we commented that once the stream connects
to the larger system at the bottom, the channel is likely to "splay out" and lose channel features. General comment that
will be repeated later, need to include more watershed area than is shown, the restoration work, if truly restoration, will
hydrologically affect more area than they have shown in easement.
2. Craven 26- similar comments as above, however, soils look to support more of a headwater site for the entire site.
The restoration reach has mapped soils which are more indicative of headwater (with lidar). Also, another drainage
coming in from the south should be looked at to capture (look at the lidar).
3. Craven 27- preservation only site. Had beaver dam at the top, an old one. Believe we discussed the best way to
figure out the stream length in this site. One option would be valley length, or measurement of the primary channel
leaving out the top portion of the site as wetland (beaver pond).
November 21 st:
4. Craven 75- this site was two small sites, one more enhancement and the other preservation. We walked into the
enhancement reach first. I believe they are proposing to plant the buffer out to 150 feet. The stream had a 30-40 foot
buffer on it already, adjacent to a clear cut. The enhancement ratio would probably be higher for this reach. I don't
believe we looked at the preservation portion of this site.
5. Craven 1- Then I believe we walked into the preservation reach (9b) from the end of a road. Very nice large cypress,
however, not a large (long) preservation site. Basically two short reaches with 9b having some discussions of a
boundary issue/question. I really do not prefer small sites, whether they are preservation or restoration.
6. Craven 3- This is the one where we stood on the road and discussed the feasibility. The site had a ditch with young
pines on both sides of the road. The soils map in the document showed a parallel Masontown feature which would
support a possible 1 st order channel. There would need to be alot of work to get this system back to a natural channel.
Action Items:
Page 1

Notes, Sketch, etc.:
Page 2