HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160299 Ver 1_DWR Comments_20170320Carpenter,Kristi
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Andy,
Baker, Virginia
Monday, March 20, 2017 4:14 PM
Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Haupt, Mac; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US);
amy.chapman@ncdenr.gov; monte.matthews@usace.army.mil
Asheboro Bypass Mitigation Site R-2536
R-2536 Asheboro Bypass Jarrel Site Elevation and Lidar Map jpg;
R-2536 Asheboro Bypass Jarrel Site Soils Map jpg; R-2536 Asheboro
Bypass Jarrel Site Topo Map.jpg; Asheboro Bypass Jerrell Mitigation
Site _ Soils table.docx; Asheboro Bypass DWR comments.docx
I visited the Asheboro Bypass R-2536 site on March 8 and plan to see the presentation
at the Resident Engineer's Office this coming wed. I ended up walking the sections of
the stream that were not flooded by beaver, I did not walk up the tribs. I should
mention that I am tasked with dealing with the mitigation side of all of the DOT onsite
mitigation permitting and assisting Mac with the DMS mitigation since that offsets DOT.
Likely I will be assisting more with some bank mitigation in the future more too. The
permitting impacts for Asheboro Bypass has had a few different DWR reps (Dave
Wanucha, Brian Wrenn, Rob Riding) and that position now open (Rob is acting). In the
past one rep from DWR dealt with the impacts and the mitigation. When that person is
hired I will make sure to help them get up to speed with the mitigation part of the
project.
During the site visit Drew reminded me that they had presented to DWq back in August
2013 and then a few months later to the IRT on 11/12/2013. I had seen the presentation
at DWQ this was right before I moved into the DOT mitigation position so at the time I
had some familiarity with wetland mitigation but not much with stream mitigation,
although since then I have seen many DOT, DMS, and some bank site projects. I don't
think I attended the 11-12-13 IRT meeting and was unable to find the presentation in
Ribits (Todd the meeting min refer to the attachment of the presentation, but it is not
attached). I also see that RKK presented at the century center on 8/15/15 to Agency
reps for the Asheboro Bypass which you attended. I did see that 8/15/2015 presentation
in our files, I was out of town at the time, I remember Dave Wanucha telling me about
it. RKK has certainly done some really nice mitigation projects in Pennsylvania based on
the presentation photos and I am interested in hearing about their new projects this
wed, although I do have concerns about the applicability of their proposed approach to
the Asheboro Bypass project.
Attached is a summary of my observations and comments for this site. I also did some
research on the site soils and terrain, see the attached table and maps. I talked to Mac
about this project, specifically the soils, as he knows soils and has a lot more experience
than I do. He thought that it would be unusual to find a site with 15.6 ac of restorable
wetlands near Asheboro and suggested the need for horizon soils data. I showed him
pics and he thought the banks had pretty bright soil. I have summarized my comments
and included what Mac said in the comments see attached.
I'll also have a link for some pics I took which I will send in a separate email. You'll see
that some of the banks are pretty rough and some aren't.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. I'll be in tomorrow,
otherwise I will see you on Wednesday.
Ginny
Ginny B�ker
Tr�nsport�tion Permitting Unit
NCDEQ-Division ofW�ter Resou�ces
�650 M�ilSe�vice Cehter
R�leigh, NC27699-�650
Phone-<9�9I 707-8788, F�x-(9�9� 733-�290
Asheboro Bypass — R-2536, On-Site Mitigation Jerrell Property, Lunsford, and Farlow
DWR Site Review — March 8, 2017
Existing conditions —
The mainstem Squirrel Creek has some incision and appears to be in the process of widening. Parts of it
may have been relocated and moved against the hillside (see attached LIDAR). The bed appeared stable
and functioning with macroinvertebrates present (caddis flies, water penny's) indicating this site likely
has decent water quality. Google earth shows the Jarrell site was logged around 2012. Some mature
trees (30 yrs +) have been left along the banks on much of the Jarrel property. The Farlow and Lunsford
sites, approximately 500' of mainstem and 400' of tribs, are completely forested.
There are some actively eroding banks along bends and in the area near the old mill dam. In some areas
the stream has undercut the bank and is causing bank sluffing. Other areas had fairly stable banks.
There are also three beaver dams on site so it was not possible to evaluate the condition of the banks in
those sections of the stream. I saw one of the tribs on the Farlow property (?) which was stable
although somewhat incised.
There are two small wetlands on site which we did not see. RKK said at least one of them (?) is
associated with a beaver dam.
Existing stream length and wetland acres were not listed on map.
The stream and buffer is mapped as Georgeville silt loam, an upland well drained soil (see attached soil
description table). There is Chewacla soil mapped just downstream of the site.
Proposed Mitigation Approach -
RKK is proposing a"holistic" approach that will restore stream and wetland by removing legacy
sediments and creating a stream wetland complex with both traditions stream single thread and braided
channels. This would be done with a Priority Level 2 approach. Additional meanders would be added to
the stream pattern. Various structures would be incorporated into the stream meanders. Proposed
mitigation would include 6930 LF of stream and 15.6 acres of wetland restoration. RKK referred to this
as a "Pilot" project.
DWR comments —
Existing jurisdictional wetlands should be removed from the wetland restoration acreage. DWR would
recommends considering these wetlands to be enhancement if just planted or rehabilitation if planted
and hydrology improved.
The utility corridor was not taken into account when determining credits.
There is a section of the stream that is proposed to be fairly close to the proposed right-of-way. DWR
would want to make sure appropriated 50 foot buffers are maintained.
There may be opportunity to increase stream credits in sections of the property that have a wider the 50
ft buffer.
DWR recommends DOT follow the requirements of the new 2016 Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT October 24, 2016) since this site is comparable in size
to many DMS and Bank sites if possible.
The Jerrell mitigation site does have potential for stream ecological uplift through restorative measures.
Although, a lighter approach that incorporates E1 and E2 measures in some sections that do not have as
unstable banks or just need some bank grading or spot fixes seems more appropriate for this site. The
area around the old mill dam and some other sections could benefit from restoration. The buffers would
benefit from tree planting and the removal of some exotics. The forested stream reach in the Lunsford
and Farlow properties could use some bank repairs or this section could just be left alone. Removing the
trees for P2 restoration is not recommended. The tribs in this forested section are not on the conceptual
map although P2 is proposed, it is not clear if they would be converted to wetland.
DWR also has concerns about the viability of this site for wetland restoration. The mapped soil,
Georgeville Silt Loam, is not hydric and is described to be very poor for wetland plant habitat, very poor
for shallow water areas, deep to water (>6'), fit for planting upland trees, and well drained. RKK should
provide soil horizon field data that shows there is a buried hydric soil horizon. This size wetland along a
stream in the Piedmont near Asheboro would be unusual. Removing this much soil across a 50-foot
buffer could result in compaction which can make revegetation challenging. Additionally, the trees that
are currently shading the stream would be removed. For DMS and Bank sites which are comparable in
size to this this property, the IRT has considered excavation of > 1' to be creation. It should also be
noted that the approach of removing overburden soil >1 feet down to the" legacy sediments" as
restoration has been proposed for DMS sites and bank sites in the past and was considered to be
creation.
Other Questions and responses.
Is there a reference stream? — Drew Altland said he would use reference riffles (and other structures)
but not a specific reference stream.
Why was a Priority 2 proposed for such a long reach, usually with DMS projects this is only seen when
there are concerns of hydric intrusion of a neighbor's property? Priority 2 is proposed to remove the
legacy sediments for a holistic approach. It was also mentioned the fill would be used for building the
roadway.
Asheboro Bypass Jerrell Mitigation Site
Map Wetland Shallow
Unit Plant Water Drainage to Hydric, soil
Soil Type Symbol Description Habitat Areas Water Table Trees properties Roadfill
Not hydric -
loblolly, short leaf pin, Well drained >
deep to white&scarlet oak, 6ft to high very
Georgeville Silt Loam GaC 8-15% slopes very poor very poor water hickory, vA pine water table good
Not hydric -
loblolly, short leaf pin,
well drained >
4-15% slopes, deep to white&scarlet oak, 6ft to high
Georgeville Silt Loam GbC extremely stoney very poor very poor water hickory, va pine water table good
Not hydric -
loblolly, short leaf pin,
well drained >
15-45% slopes, deep to white&scarlet oak, 6ft to high
Georgeville Silt Loam GdE extremely boldery very poor very poor water hickory, VA pine, Hickory water table Fair
� . . �
. , �.
,\ _�,� � °`�-. ���, � _ - __ .
y -�
���, �,.�•. , �� / l.
,.
� '��� -I �`` ;�i
;= � ,\�, ' — � t, � �,, ; -
t � •. �`� . � �'�� ` . � � 1 �
i �� � ��:�`�/��� . � 4.ti.«� \ � •.
� x 787' � � � � - r �' � �-
I � '�aj �`� ��% ��� �\� (�.� �
, �f/ ' . � • /
l 'I> .
�
!
, � : /,• 1 _ � •�. ti'.
'i. : . ���, _ �� �',� ' ; " — ;'; � , l�
. 1 i . `— ,/ � G r--,
,, f , O
� ,� / � �� �"
,• %� �_�,�,'
r � : � f ,
/7 v,/ r// � ` ,,
` f � , `� �,Z � , )�1 I �
r� :� r , � ,►p � , , . l �
.. ;'/ . ��p� �_
•; ! . -
�/� - „ �n�; � snn , _�ao , ,00 �
Fe.�
/�/ r _�� - - .t$ ��s3y '^'"�--. ._-_ . f�„
��
.,,� '+j .:. .
.r. . ; �. e �_ � . '
F ' .v _ �
��
� , GeB2 /
� GtlE
a ' �, en„
�
J ' �:,� a : . �u
GeB2 �� GeB2, � 3 . GeB2
GaC '
� �.,�"'�.d'�:,
c
., `���# / *�
� � �"�_I ; e�'w �1 A
�,, ='�,� "ti t,�' �Yi�R,
^�,t
�?'"� .� df ° ,�
.�. �� � , .`, i "�I� * ,.�. �°'�`ti:,;;�
�
� �
k �0' "ChS^.. -.t>.,
% . . �' � , 1" .��
I ��
� � �
�
\ ! A
,1 .
\ c�ez eao
. , roo � I a
i Y� i
_ + F �a�� � � � �` ,��� �' ), W ,
—IA —
se: �.yvw �'; i nm _._.. �iii . i��:,,� i i �
�� "
m�iF ��
ti��
I� r�i�u�� _
_ ' `' �,
r
i
_ �� I i I I�il�;'
i�j� �����
h•R� I
i ��� — i i ����ni �.ce.