HomeMy WebLinkAboutCannonball_100644_IRT Post Contract Site Visit Meeting Minutes_2023
MEETING NOTES
MEETING: IRT Post‐Contract Site Walk
CANNONBALL MITIGATION SITE
Catawba 03050102‐ Lower Catawba Boundary; Gaston County, NC
DMS# 100644; Wildlands Project No. 005‐02205
DATE: Monday, February 13, 2023
LOCATION: Lewis Farm Road
Bessemer City, NC
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Steve Kichefski, USACE
Erin Davis, USACE
Dave McHenry, WRC
Emily Reinicker, Wildlands
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands
Paul Wiesner, NC DMS
Harry Tsomides, NC DMS
Matthew Reid, NC DMS
Materials
Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal 10/18/2022
Meeting Notes
The meeting began at 11:00 AM. Shawn Wilkerson (SW) presented a brief overview of the project:
Site consists of Flowers Tributary, Long Creek, and Haynes Tributary.
Flowers and Long Creek upstream extents tie into bedrock and can begin from Priority 1 (P1)
restoration. Some P2 transition will be needed at upstream end of Haynes Tributary. The Long Creek
downstream extent will step back down with a short section of P2 to tie in offsite.
8,779 stream credits proposed (904 stream credits derived from wider buffers) and 4.001 riparian
wetland credits
No crossings on the project
4 WMUs proposed in areas of current hydric soils per Technical Proposal
Wildlands (WLE) expects that additional wetland areas will develop after streams are restored and
ditches are filled. WLE will propose in Mitigation Plan to ask for additional WMUs during post‐
construction monitoring if pre‐ and post‐construction groundwater modeling indicates that additional
wetland resources have developed on site. Buffer Tool SMUs may be abandoned in favor of additional
WMUs.
1. Todd Tugwell (TT) noted that hydric soils are needed in order to qualify for restoration WMUs. SW
discussed that based on historic aerial photos, wetlands have been ditched since at least 1932. SW
interested in researching hydric soil development, perhaps soils were hydric prior to ditching. TT
cautioned that non‐hydric alluvial overburden may not have been in place 100 years ago. Discussion of
creation versus restoration WMU credits.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
CANNONBALL MITIGATION SITE‐ Gaston County, NC
February 13, 2023 IRT Post‐Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes
2. TT asked if DMS is open to contract amendment for additional WMUs. DMS is open to potential
contract amendment.
3. TT concerned about converting already‐released stream credit areas (from Buffer Tool) to WMU credit
areas. TT asked for credit release schedule to be set up such that credits would not have to be retracted
after released.
4. TT suggested that areas within first 50‐feet of stream buffer be used for WMUs. Converting Buffer Tool
stream credits to WMUs would only be an issue for WMUs requested outside of the 50‐foot required
buffers.
5. TT requested that Buffer Tool SMUs and potential WMUs be discussed in Mitigation Plan.
6. Erin Davis (ED) asked whether multiple hydroperiod success criteria are proposed based on different soil
types noted on site (Chewacla, Wehadkee, Congaree). SW clarified that only one hydroperiod success
range will be proposed, based on the soil type located in the WMU credit area.
7. ED asked about relocation of Flowers tributary & Long Creek confluence‐ shifting downstream. SW
noted that from historic aerials, Flowers Trib previously flowed into Haynes Trib upstream of Haynes
flowing into Long Creek. This stream alignment would extend stream length further. WLE’s proposed
alignment is based on valley topography and offline construction techniques.
8. ED noted Murdannia on site. ED recommended pre‐treatment as well as discussion of treatment and
adaptive management strategies in Mitigation Plan. Will Murdannia affect wetlands, will woody stems
grow through Murdannia?
9. ED requested that the pine management strategy (pine stand between Flowers & Long Creek) be
addressed in Mitigation Plan.
10. ED noted it was nice to see wider buffers and no crossings in the concept plan.
11. ED requested that stationing and lengths of Priority 2 sections be specifically called out and discussed in
Mitigation Plan. ED would like a veg plot located in P2 floodplain bench since these areas historically
have struggled with vegetation establishment.
12. ED and Steve Kichefski (SK) noted that they appreciated the format and information provided in the LSS
report (table with depth to hydric for each boring location).
13. New USACE structure and project assignments: SK and ED will be project contacts; all project
communication through them with no need to copy TT.
14. DMS has provided Wildlands with new template for public notice. DMS will forward public notice to ED
after review and receipt from Wildlands.
15. Discussed that Gaston County does have some tribal coordination needed after SHPO comments are
received. DMS will lead tribal coordination.
Meeting attendees walked site.
16. At upstream end of Flowers Tributary, expect minimal Priority 2 cut will be required for short transition
length to tie to Priority 1 restoration. Expect P2 cut approximately 1 foot or less at upstream end.
17. TT noted berms along top of bank on Flowers Tributary.
18. Discussion of existing farm ditches on site. Jurisdictional Determination (JD) will be required by local
USACE field office. USACE asked that Wildlands make sure to account for loss or conversion of any JD
features in the Mitigation Plan and PCN.
19. SK asked about tree loss, specifically along single line of mature trees rooted into the berms at top of
bank on project streams and ditches. Wildlands discussed that current stream channels and ditches will
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
CANNONBALL MITIGATION SITE‐ Gaston County, NC
February 13, 2023 IRT Post‐Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes
be filled as part of restoration. This amount of grading on top of tree roots plus the change in hydrologic
regime as water table is raised is likely to result in tree death over the years after construction.
Wildlands is more likely to cut the mature trees and use them as habitat structures on site. Wildlands
can work around clumps of 2‐3 trees to avoid grading, leave existing channels as floodplain pools. Dave
McHenry (DH) noted there were no specimen trees that are worth working around or trying to save.
20. In existing wetland area south of the Flowers Tributary ditch network (wetland area was approximated
for Technical Proposal‐ not yet officially delineated), TT discussed if only one wetland function is
expected to be improved, then enhancement credit may be more appropriate than rehabilitation credit.
TT asked if/ how vegetation would be improved. TT asked if existing hydrology regime is already
appropriate and whether “more” hydrology would be considered an improvement to the resource, or
just more wet. Wildlands to discuss credit ratio rationale and provide existing condition GWG data in
Mitigation Plan.
21. ED asked that side slope adjacent to wetland resource be protected in conservation easement (from
wetland located at toe of slope up to top of slope).
22. TT noted that Wildlands may want to include observation of existing wetland vegetation for die‐off in
existing wetland area.
23. ED noted that veg diversity could be improved; existing conditions are heavy in black walnut and red
maple.
24. At the upstream end of Haynes Tributary, noted gas line utility crossing that is outside of the project
area.
25. Upstream end of Haynes Tributary design will be Priority 2 unless the upstream property owner allows
Wildlands to backup water onto his property.
26. Many wet areas noted on site. USACE suggested that Wildlands may want to discuss in Mitigation Plan,
possibly formulate a delayed planting installation for plants that will thrive once long‐term hydro regime
is stabilized. USACE open to setting height criteria on certain species only and/or in certain areas.
Discussed that wet areas can stunt growth of some species.
27. ED reiterated concern over pine management. Recommended that pines be completely removed from
conservation easement project area. Noted that adjacent pines can take up extra water and affect
hydrology for nearly wetlands and streams. Recommended follow‐up cutting in MY3 and MY5 for any
volunteers (as opposed to waiting until MY7 to address volunteers).
28. USACE expressed interest in leaving some of the old channels and ditches only partly filled to provide
floodplain pool habitat on site.
29. Lake/ reservoir noted off‐site, upstream of Flowers Tributary west of Lewis Farm Road. Wildlands will
investigate potential storage/ flow effects on receiving stream and discuss in Mitigation Plan.
30. TT recommended reference wetland be identified.
31. Site walk concluded approximately 1:00 PM.
The IRT’s concluding comments implied concurrence with stream restoration mitigation approach and 1:1
crediting for each of the streams on site: Long Creek, Flowers Tributary, and Haynes Tributary. The JD will be
important for accounting for any jurisdictional ditch feature conversion/ impacts. The JD will also be important
for determining wetland mitigation approaches and credit ratios. Wetland work may include rehabilitation, re‐
establishment, and/or enhancement. Wetland mitigation approaches and credit ratios will be proposed in the
Mitigation Plan.
These meeting minutes were prepared by Emily Reinicker on February 15, 2023. Reviewed and revised by DMS 2/20/2023.