20120747 Ver 1_Mitigation Site Visit_20200521

Strickland, Bev
From: Davis, Erin B
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:09 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) ([e-mail]);
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
([e-mail])
Cc: Mac Haupt ([e-mail])
Subject: Devils Racetrack CR Site Visit
Todd/Kim —
The Devils Racetrack site visit went well. We did not walk the entire site, rather targeted specific areas of concern.
GWGs 24 and 26 have not been meeting the performance standard; however, these wetland restoration areas were not
shown to be as -risk by DMS/WEI. Kevin Martin conducted a soil investigation and provided one boring within 100 feet of
each of these gauges that indicated hydric soil present. DWR wanted to take additional samples closer to the gauges to
check wetland establishment. We dug in multiple areas and found generally consistent conditions — the soil was dry and
fairly compact, but did appear to be hydric. Additionally, indicators of hydrology (water stained leaves, drainage
patterns) were observed and both the woody and herbaceous vegetation were well established with high diversity and
vigor. We do not consider these areas to be at -risk.
The eastern section of the project has had significant issues with veg establishment and vigor, but reported
improvement in the MY6 report with only one plot not achieving the density threshold. DWR walked areas around each
of the crossings and at the Neuse confluence. We observed a noticeable improvement in herbaceous cover and leafed -
out woody stems visible throughout. WEI is planning to conduct another lime treatment this year. With the growth more
representative of what is seen in MY4/5, the question we have is whether an additional year of lime treatment and veg
monitoring is warranted considering that this is MY7/closeout.
Additional observations: all stream reaches were dry, but no significant veg within the channels.
Credit release recommendation: DWR is in agreement with the areas the soil report delineated as potential upland, with
the addition of the DMS at -risk areas around GWGs 13 and 3. We recommend credits to cover these upland/at-risk areas
be withheld if there isn't sufficient remaining credits to account for these areas in the MY7 release. We're ok with the
MY6 stream credit release, but there will need to be a discussion on vigor for MY7.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Erin
Erin B. Davis, PWS
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Specialist
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality