20181034 Ver 1_Meeting Notes_20180801

Date * 8/1/2018
Site Type Stream
Prepared By* Mac H.
Sponsor/Provider DMS -Baker
Project Name * UT to Rush Fork
NCDMS
ID #
USACE
ID #
DWR 20181034 Version* 1
ID#*
HUC Basin French Broad
County* Haywood
Coordinates
Degrees North Degrees West
Attendees
Baker- Mickey, Katie, Russell
DMS- Paul, Matthew, Periann, Tim
COE- Todd
Notes and Sketch,
etc
Walked upstream along UT4, UT1 R3 -R2 -R1. Upper UT4 looked alot like E2, had good cobble substrate,
buffer lacking on right bank. Above crossing, UT1 R3 appeared to R2 and R1 to me. Suggested that upper
UT4 maybe E2 like as well.
Walked upstream to UT3 R1 and above. UT3 R1 actually looked more like R than upper UT4. Suggested
that this approach may balance loss of credits for UT4. Also, Baker may consider going after another 200 ft
or so. However, that reach may be more at risk of losing flow. Still think its a good idea. Also, they are
putting BMP at top as well. Walked down UT3 R2, ok for R, below crossing however, reach flattens out and
may become wetland.
UT1 R4, there was discussion, arguing here by COE that this could/should be E as well. Based on BHR of
1. Just cattle impacted and not riparian buffer. I was ok with R on this portion, mainlyfor tie in purposes.
Looked at lower reach below road. Ok for R here.
Action Items