20181033 Ver 1_Meeting Notes_20180801

Date * 8/1/2018
Site Type Stream and Wetland -FD
Prepared By* Mac H.
Sponsor/Provider DMS -HDR
Project Name * Owen Farms
NCDMS USACE
ID # ID #
DWR 20181033 Version* 1
ID#*
HUC Basin French Broad
County* Transylvania
Coordinates
Degrees North Degrees West
Attendees
HDR -Ben Furr, Ryan Smith
DMS- Paul, Matthew, Periann, Tim
COE- Todd, Steve, David Brown
Notes and Sketch,
etc
Started walk down UT5, proposed R and was incised, they are planning on moving over nearer wetland to
enhance hydrologyof wetland. Adjacent wetland was impacted bycattle but verywet, soils hydric. Walked
along some of mainstem of West Fork of French Broad, channel as impacted by cattle, a little over wide
and a little incised. They are also planning on moving channel out into floodplain to enhance wetland.
Then walked to look at UT2 and UT1, E2 tribs. Upper UT2 and UT2a more impacted by cattle, lower UT2
has a wetland influenced by beaver that they cannot remove (offsite). Would not want to mess with, showing
enhancement through this wet area so that is a question mark.
UT1 had cattle impact but not alot. Talked about a different credit ratio, 3.5-5:1, probably 3.5-4:1.
Walked to the upper portion of WF of French Broad, again they are planning on moving out into field. This is
where I was starting to think do they need to move this stream. Could they work in place, would still be R...
Walked to UT4-don't recall as much although I believe it was similar to the other E2 reaches.
Then walked along remaining portion of WF of French Broad, first part had a valley pinch which they would
be able to move and the last part they proposed as E2 because the right bank was very stable.
Ended with looking at UT7, proposed R, ok and upper E and preservation.
Bottom line, good chance for wetlands to increase hydro, however, will need to check on the E2 reaches
and appropriate credit. Also, should they move the mainstem? I don't think they need to, will need to look at
closely during draft mit plan phase.
Action Items