20180198 Ver 1_Sassarixa Field meeting notes_20180223

Meeting Notes
Date: February 23, 2018
Type of Site: NCDMS Stream Site
Prepared By: Mac Haupt
Sponsor/Provider: Wildlands Engineering
Meeting Type: Field Site Review
NCDMS ID Number:
Project Name: Sassarixa
County: Johnston
USACE Action ID Number:
HUC and Basin: Neuse - 03020201
NCDWR Project Number: 20180198
Coordinates: 35.4732 `N -78.4373 `W
Attendees:
WEI- John H., Angela A.
WRC- Travis
DWR- Katie
COE- Andrea H., Ross S.
DMS- Jeff S., Greg M.
Notes, Sketch, etc.:
Started at T1- R1 and R2 -small ditch/channel, with alot of cattle pressure, in fact, farmer needs to do some cleaning up
of practices, one area of cattle dung pushed onto bank and into stream. Proposed E2 for R1, ok. Feature then turns and
R2 begins proposed as R, ok. T1 a comes into reach. Ross and Katie both called the stream lower down so they would
need to probably only include about half of what they are proposing for E2 on T1 a. R3- R proposed, ok. R4- E2
proposed to connect into the main stem of Sassarixa Creek, ok.
Sassarixa Crk- nicely wooded, Cypress and Water Tupelo?, cattle to have access. No understory. The main channel
was measured for credit. The channel is anabranching but essentially stable. There will be a cattle crossing and it will
likely be challenging to manage. Approach ok for main stem of Sassarixa Crk- R1-3.
T2- proposed R coming from pond. Below pond no channel -like feature at all ... pond full of water, however, Travis
warned them of what they might find (farmer may have dug out very deeply at top end, would be difficult if that is the
case. We advised do the work at your risk. The question is will they have the flow.
TSa-c- Did have an earlier discussion about how we don't like to see reaches separated by ponds. Discussed credit
similarities to Daniels Creek, but also stated we did not allow a project to include a disconnected reach that was above
and below a pond. The tribs had flow. Alot of wetland seeps. TSc, however, flow stopped about half way up, more of a
wetland. We discussed and allowed valley credit for the reach. For the whole area we agreed to E2 at 2.5:1 because
of the extensive wetlands they will fence out, otherwise we would have gone to 3:1.
T4- two upper reaches proposed as E2 -R1 ok, then a wetland break, did appear that alot of R2 was not a stream as
well, approx 200 If, as progressed into R3 and R4 (proposed preservation) there were several small breaks where the
channel went subsurface. Asked WEI to give us lengths and how many when they start doing more stream analysis.
T5 -R3 -proposed as E2 at 2.5:1, riparian buffer good on one side, about half needed width on the other. Stream
channel ok, some exotics. Looked liked more of an E3 reach, would probably recommend at 3 or 4:1.
R2- i thought about half (lower) reach seemed ok, and may need only E3 help. The upper half had a few more issues.
R probably ok. Travis thought the entire R2 reach could use R.
T6- proposed E2 and R, ok. Although did tell them the disconnected nature of this reach would either not be allowed or
get a lower credit ration in the future.
Action Items:
Page 1

Notes, Sketch, etc.:
Page 2