The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200369 Ver 1_IRT Meeting Notes_Yadkin 05_11-2-2020_20201105Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina Ph: (919) 755-9490 November 5, 2020 Fx: (919) 755-9492 RE: Wit's End Mitigation Site Post-IRT Site Visit Notes DMS Contract No. 7968, SAW-2020-00455, DWR-2020-0369 v1 Attendees: USACE: Todd Tugwell NCDWR: Erin Davis NCDMS: Paul Wiesner and Matthew Reid AXE: Grant Lewis RS: Ray Holz and Alex Baldwin On November 2, 2020, representatives of the Interagency Review Team (IRT) met with representatives from the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), Restoration Systems (RS), and Axiom Environmental (AXE) at the Wit's End Mitigation Site to review the technical supplement and 30% design submitted on October 7, 2020. Below is a summary of the discussed topics and IRT comments. RS will use this summary, and additional IRT notes received in the development of the Mitigation Plan. Streams: • The IRT had questions about Waxhaw Branch and UT 3 running parallel to each other before their confluence. RS and Axiom stated the design was based on the detailed topographic survey and point file from the surveyor. The design was governed by locating the valley's low point and applying the appropriate pattern based on reference reach data. Further, it was discussed that Waxhaw Branch and UT 3 have two separate valleys, with a distinct topographic rise between them. The IRT requested more information concerning the elevations and topography at this location of the Site. RS has provided a two high -resolution PDF figures, one with the topographic survey and the other with QL2 LiDAR at 1-foot contours, for IRT's use in evaluating the design. If additional data/discussion is required, a web -conference could be set up to review the Site's topography and stream design. RS and Axiom have begun evaluating alternatives for the UT-3 and Waxhaw Branch confluence. • The IRT had questions about UT 4 tie in location to Waxhaw Branch. It was discussed in the field that UT 4 and UT 5 were designed to combine as UT 5 enters the larger Waxhaw Valley, providing appropriate stream power for sediment transport. This design approach would also provide hydrology uplift for wetland re-establishment areas of the Site. The IRT agreed to the proposed restoration of both UT 4 and 5, with further justification within the Mitigation Plan regarding channel location. IRT discussed the possibility of maintaining the lower reach of UT 4 as a braided stream/wetland complex. Based on the approved PJD, this area contains approximately 0.20 acres of existing wetlands and is roughly 125 linear valley feet long. Axiom and RS will investigate the pros and cons of this mitigation strategy. All parties agreed to the proposed restoration approach for the remainder of UT-4. A discussion of removing existing pines along UT 4 was had, and RS stated pines would be removed within the riparian area and adjacent uplands. The IRT agreed their removal and the subsequent establishment of native hardwood species would be beneficial. Additional maintenance protocols will be provided in the Mitigation Plan to ensure volunteer pines do not recolonize the area. Pine trees removed will be mulched and used within the Site along ATV paths or kept whole and distributed along the Waxhaw floodplain to introduce organic material back into the system. 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492 The IRT noted addressing bamboo removal along the upper margins of UT 3 pre -construction and providing follow-up treatments early in monitoring. RS concurred and agreed that even if bamboo was located outside of the proposed/final easement, RS would treat and remove all stems during the monitoring period. It was noted the proposed Waxhaw Branch drop structure would be constructed with natural material (i.e., log structures). Wetlands- • The IRT requested that additional narrative and description of the vernal pool wetland complex associated with the pond and dam removals along UT 3 be included in the Mitigation Plan. Also, there is an expectation the restored vernal pool wetland complexes will have a fluctuating hydroperiod and not be inundated year-round. • The IRT indicated they would further review the technical supplement information and reach out to others to evaluate the proposed wetland re-establishment within drained hydric soils for the project. The IRT also proposed including soil profile descriptions during monitoring to assess hydric indicator development. RS was open to including this monitoring component for soils in wetland re-establishment areas. • The IRT noted the high chroma matrix color of some wetland re-establishment soils and inquired about the landscape position associated with the F8 hydric indicator. RS noted the F8 indicator does not include a chroma requirement for the matrix as the hydric indicator coupled with landscape position indicate wetland hydrology. RS discussed that agricultural manipulation of proposed wetland re-establishment areas has obscured natural depressional landform features. • The IRT asked about the proposed hydroperiod for the wetlands. RS offered an 8% hydroperiod based on soil taxonomy ofAquic Hapludults in the Piedmont (6-8% hydroperiod), which was noted and proposed in the Technical Proposal. Easement: • The IRT inquired about the 4 ATV crossings shown in the easement and why they were included. RS noted the acquisition of the entire parcel and crossings provide access to isolated areas outside the easement. The crossings will be clearly marked and stabilized with natural materials (i.e., mulch/wood chips). ATV paths will be depicted on the conservation easement plat and recorded at the Union County Registry. The ATV paths/forded crossings will be thoroughly discussed in the Mitigation Plan, and areas within ATV paths/forded crossings will not generate mitigation credit. • Most project streams will include a +200-ft buffer In summary, the IRT accepted the project and appreciated the additional data collection and technical supplement provided to support the project. The IRT asked for some downstream reaches, near confluences, to be redesigned or for there to be proper justification in the Mitigation Plan supporting the stream design/alignment. The proposed vernal pools will need to be detailed in the Mitigation Plan to include planting assemblage and work to be performed. Wetland re-establishment areas will have little to no grading beyond the construction associated with stream restoration activities and removing earthen berms/impoundments. There was a general agreement on credit ratios provided there is detailed justification in the Mitigation Plan. Thank you, Raymond Holz Restoration Systems 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492 Legend c 3 RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC z Figure 1: Stream and Wetland Assets with Existing Topography - 2019 Imagery 580-ft L-[580-ft 580-ft 1! Fl 575-ft #AD --i 575-ft I "1411 575-ft I* *&VO-st r& r11 L�j 1 Y f __ a 0 P' « V"� Cs RESTORATION Figure Stream • Wetland Assets with dExisting !1 2019 Imagery r SYSTEI�ZS LLC 4 i d�:D �& Q 4 Dt' '+^ Q O ' 0 9 v Y o Q gym• 0 •t - 9 o o' r CIO OP f cr CD rN O ( ovy S DOo p �r S � �CD � of _ WHO v MOM `�-= fir` # ' ► LEM ir a c IN ds Foll111=81111"A"I'll" Awl . .... 1 �• / • • 4 F �t f 4 Y r 8 - C: )