20120396 Ver 1_Moores Fork Meeting Notes 2019_20190610

Mitigation Site Meeting Notes
Date: April 15, 2019
Project Name: Moores Fork
Prepared By: Kim Browning, USACE
Type of Site: NCDMS Stream Site
Meeting Type: Year 3 Monitoring Review
Sponsor/Provider: Wildlands Engineering
USACE AID: SAW -2011-02257
County:Surry* *Denotes County w/ 30 -foot Buffer
NCDWR ID:
HUC and Basin: Yadkin - 03040101
Weather:
Coordinates: 36.5067 °N -80.7041 *W
Attendees:
USACE: Todd Tugwell, Kim Browning
NCDWR: Mac Haupt, Erin Davis
NCDMS: Melonie Allen,
Project Review Checklist - (provide additional detail in notes section on next page)
General Site Issues/Concerns:
❑
Vegetation Composition or Density
❑
Inappropriate Credit Ratio Proposed
❑
Planted Stem Vigor (due to soil, browsing)
❑
JD Needed to Confirm Approach
0
Invasive/Exotic Species
❑
Continuity/Fragmentation
❑
Beaver/Feral Hogs (management plan)
❑
Easement Issues (existing farm, CE, NRCS funding)
❑
Soil (manipulation, compaction, fertility)
❑
Easement Encroachments (livestock, clearing)
❑
Livestock Present/Evidence of Livestock Access
❑
Easement Marking/Signage
❑
Crossings or Utility Lines
❑
Insufficient Project Size
❑
BMPs or Alternate Approaches
❑
Adjacent Property Owner
❑
Fencing Issues or Fencing Needed
❑
T&E Species
❑
Ponds Within Project Area
❑
Section 106 (historic listing/tribal issues)
Stream Issues/Concerns:
❑
Incised/Entrenched
❑
Insufficient Stream Drainage Area
M
Headcuts Present/Forming
❑
Insufficient Hydrology (if raising channel bed)
17
Stream Structures Failing/Piping
0
Vegetation in Channel (stream vs wetland)
17
Excess Sediment/Aggradation
❑
Flow Obstructions (undersized pipes, fords)
❑
Cross -Sections Missing/Indicate Problems
❑
Substrate Concerns (embeddedness, particle size)
17
Bank Instability/Failure
❑
Live Stakes Absent/Failing
❑
Bench Rills/Erosion (constructed bench or P2 valley)
❑
Evidence of Water Quality Issues
❑
Excess Sinuosity (lack of flow)
❑
In -stream Habitat Weak/Missing
❑
Braided/Anabranch Channel
❑
Stream Buffer Width Inadequate
Wetland Issues/Concerns:
❑
Evidence of Excessive Hydrology
❑
Missing Gauge Data (preconstruction or monitoring)
❑
Evidence of Insufficient Hydrology
❑
Gauge Location/Placement
❑
Hydric Soil Indicators/Soil Series
❑
Gauge Maintenance
❑
Surface Roughness or Bedding
❑
Drainage Ditches/Swales Present
❑
Channel Relocation/Riparian Connectivity
❑
Field Tiles/Subsurface Drainage
❑
Hydroperiod Length or Start/Stop Date
❑
Continued Ag Use Adjacent to Wetland
Page 1 of 2

Date: April 15, 2019 Project Name: Moores Fork
Notes, Sketch, Action Items, etc.:
OFFICE REVIEW: **I suggest looking at this one**
Credits: 14.5 SMUs were removed due to two 20' powerline ROWS, DMS gave them 50% credit in these areas (Why
are they gettting any credit in these areas?)
Invasives: seven treatments were done last summer/fall, still an issue. (Privet, honeysuckle, Oriental Bittersweet,
KUDZU, morning glory, multiflora rose) 5% of buffer
Veg: problem areas identified on CCPV. 3/12 plots failed (two on Moore's Reach 2, and one on Cow Trib 2) .
Stream: a few areas of bank erosion and structure instability (11 structures failing)
-headcut at wetland outlet UT8 and UT9
-Stone Toe boulder undermined
-Log vane structure piping
-Aggradation at confluence of UT7 with Barn Reach 2 and Moores Reach 2
-Pond Tributary: upper end choked with sediment and veg
-Gully erosion in two areas coming from the barns on Barn Reach 1.
-Log step footers exposed and log piping (on 3 structures) on Silage Reach 2. Also gully erosion in buffer.
XS-ST3 downcut about a foot from MY1
XS-ST6 lateral movement
June 10, 2019 Field Review:
Silage tributary has multiple problems. The upper end has several large gullies tat were stabilized using broken
concrete chucks. Sediment has filled in behind these and has now impacted the channel below. The majority of the
reach was only worked on the left bank with large rock placed to stabilize the bank but the right bank has many areas
of instability and current and future tree fall.
Silage UT1 has a head cut near the confluence with silage tributary.
Cows fork tributary 1 needs to be checked to make sure credit does not extend beyond the lowest check dam (again
built with concrete rubble.
Cows fork tributary 2 also had concrete rubble check dams that have washed out, releasing their sediment loads
downstream. These need to be repaired.
There are several structures on silage tributary that have either piped or been bypassed.
The lower portion of silage tributary is E1 but no apparent work was done in the channel. Should be preservation only.
Moore's fork tributary has a major bank failure at the very lower end that needs to be repaired.
There are also two wetland areas at the bottoms of the preservation reaches that have large head cuts moving through
them from Moore's fork. Failure to stabilize these will result in the head cuts moving up the preservation reaches in
time.
The lower preservation reach (UT10) was dry and had an old road along side with a spoil pile. Not ideal preservation.
There is also a major bank failure just upstream of the bridge on Moore's fork that needs repair.
Pond tributary looks ok. The upper reach of Moore's fork main stem above the bank failure generally looks good.
The site needs to be treated for invasives which are still present, especially in Silage Trib.
Before deciding on credit we need to review he mit plan and discuss adaptive management with DMS.
Credit Release/Site Closeout Information (for monitoring or closeout reviews only)
Stream Credits
Wetland Credits
Warm Cool Cold
Riparian Riverine Riparian Non-Riverine Non -Riparian Coastal
Requested
Approved*
Result of Monitoring Report or Closeout Review
Project Manager Signature
Date
*The updated credit ledger for the project, which includes this release, must be approved by the Project Manager.
Page 2 of 2 Form Updated 03/20/2019