20141024 Ver 1_UT to Town Creek Meeting Notes 2019_20190611

Mitigation Site Meeting Notes
Date: April 15, 2019
Project Name: UT to Town Creek
Prepared By: Kim Browning, USACE
Type of Site: NCDMS Stream and Wetland Site
Meeting Type: Year 3 Monitoring Review
Sponsor/Provider: Baker Engineering
USACE AID: SAW -2013-01280
County: Stanly *Denotes County w/ 30 -foot Buffer
NCDWR ID:
HUC and Basin: Yadkin - 03040105
Weather:
Coordinates: 35.4322 °N -80.2464 °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
❑
Headcuts Present/Forming
❑
Insufficient Hydrology (if raising channel bed)
❑
Stream Structures Failing/Piping
❑
Vegetation in Channel (stream vs wetland)
❑
Excess Sediment/Aggradation
❑
Flow Obstructions (undersized pipes, fords)
❑
Cross -Sections Missing/Indicate Problems
❑
Substrate Concerns (embeddedness, particle size)
0
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:
O
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: UT to Town Creek
Notes, Sketch, Action Items, etc.:
OFFICE REVIEW:
INVASIVES: Privet, MF Rose, Cattail, Princess Tree. Some privet as tall as 12'. Parrot feather a big issue on main
stem. Working with DEQ to try and control it.
Stream: flow concern on reach 4.(Baker chose not to put a gauge on this reach)
-Silt accumulating in reach 7 BMP. They're required to maintain these BMPs during the monitoring period.
-Banks downstream of culvert have washed away and eroded.
-Some aggradation of a few riffle cross sections. Something to look at next year.
Veg: Some bare areas towards lower end of main channel. Did some supplemental planting in 2018.
Wetlands: all wells met 9% criteria. Well AW7 had 100% hydrology
11 June 2019 Field Notes:
Reach 4 was dry from below the confluence. There was some vegetation in the channel, but the bed and bank were
present throughout. The gauge location right below the confluence recorded 110 days consecutive flow. No adjustment
was requested but we did recommend adding a photo logged on the reach.
The crossing on Reach 6 was perched but it was installed on to bedrock and because of the intermittent nature of the
stream, it was not required to be reset.
The main Trib had good flow. There was an over widened reach below the crossing but this was per the design.
There are some areas within the wetland that don't have hydric soils or vegetation, but also some areas that appear to
be wetland outside of the wetland boundary. We asked Scott to look at these to determine the extent of inaccuracies in
the wetland boundary.
Both BMPs have some open water and appear deeper than what would be ideal. They were also constructed using
concrete weirs. While these are not credit -generating and we didn't require any changes, future BMP should be
designed differently.
Release credit as proposed.
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
640.360
0.308
Approved*
640.360
0.308
Result of Monitoring Report or Closeout Review I Full Credit Release Approved
Project Manager Signature
Date
June 11, 2019
*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