20130187 Ver 1_IRT Site Visit_20200722

Strickland, Bev
From: Crocker, Lindsay
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:45 AM
To: Davis, Erin B
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Allen, Melonie; Miller, Vickie
M. (Raleigh); [e-mail]
Subject: FW: [External] UT Millers IRT Site Visit
Attachments: UT Millers site notes for Credit Release -May 20, 2020.pdf, BNF IRT Site Visit Map
Notes.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Erin,
After talking with you in the field at about Mac's notes from the 5/18/2020 UT to Millers Creek credit release site visit, I
asked HDR to review and provide any additional feedback. Please include Ben Furr's comments (below) for
consideration and the record next year. DMS will work with HDR to come up with a more solid review of the areas in
question for inclusion in the MY6 report. Please let us know if there is anything else we should provide. Thanks,
Lindsay
Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27603
919.594.3910
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Furr, Benjamin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:38 AM
To: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>
Cc: Miller, Vickie M. (Raleigh) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] UT Millers IRT Site Visit
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Lindsay,
In general, I agree with Mac's synopsis of the May 18, 2020 site visit (see attached). However, there are a couple of
points I would like to clarify:
1. Mac mentions that several of the wetland gauges were installed in "depressional areas". When on -site Mac and I
discussed the gauge location and I told him that we tried to install gauges in landscape positions that were
representative of the majority of the wetland area. For instance, the majority of the wetland area in the vicinity of M2
has standing water seasonally. Placing a gauge along the perimeter of that wetland would not accurately represent
hydrology for the majority of the wetland. Same could be said for Gauges M4, M5, and M6. Mac was satisfied with
placement of M1 and M3, but has requested additional gauges between M1 and M3 for several years.

2. Mac did mention the presence of sweetgums while on -site, but also stated that the vegetative diversity was good,
despite the sweetgum volunteers.
3. 1 checked soils in the same areas Mac was checking and I agree that there are questionable soils along the fringes of
the restored wetland polygons. That being said, the hydric soil boundary was agreed upon during the Mitigation Plan
phase of the project.
Let me know if you have any questions. I have also attached my map with notes from the site visit for your reference (it
is pretty close to the one Mac provided).
Benjamin N. Furr I Senior Consultant
Land Management Groups Environmental Consultants
3101 Poplarwood Court, Suite 120 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
Cell: 919.588.9663 1 www.lmgroup.net
4LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAMEA c P..Y

olop No. • o: 1 �.i o 1CID
CD
-r c n o n m o my o
Ln
m d n N N 3 N J J G J V J v C J 3 Z G
N C n �`L o r2 eon m A
ID J O J k A O .ni Ol N 01 v N G O J N
J W N vi a J J J m o m N
D „d„ d N n Q d �t
m J to f//
o CD
g D J 3
J N W O O O N v j
_ fU 0 m d p C
N O O O a
d T
j
q
O — "S
m CD rt
n
n 0
J
N �
a
j
I 1�
r/

Credit release site visit to UT to Millers and DWR Recommendation to IRT re: credit release for
Monitoring Yr. 5
Date of site visit: May 18, 2020
In attendance:
LMG- Ben Furr
DMS- Melonie, Lindsay, Jeremiah
DWR- Erin and Mac
Site Notes:
The purpose of the site visit was to visit proposed areas between gauges M1 and M3 as well as other
areas that may be suspect regarding attaining wetland restoration credit. Also, DWR wanted to visit all
the gauges, it appeared at several of the 6 gauges were located in depressional areas. In addition,
please note that DWR has been requesting extra gauges since monitoring year 1 on this site.
The site visit started by visiting the headwater wetland restoration area and checking gauge M4. This
area was dominated by bald cypress and they were between 8-10 feet tall. The area was ponded but
did have adequate vegetative cover. However, gauge M4 was clearly in a depressional area. Some of
the upper edges of this area of wetland credit should be verified by DMS/provider.
Next, one of the main areas DWR wanted to check was the area labeled as Area A on the attached map.
DWR wanted to investigate the extent of hydric soils since there are no gauges between gauges M1 and
M4. This area represents a significant portion of the riparian wetland restoration credit as labeled on
Figure 2.1. DWR found that there were a number of areas where the soil cores did not show hydric
indicators, or the hydric indicators where borderline. DWR recommends this area be verified as well for
wetland status. In addition, DWR requires two additional gauges be installed in Area A. These gauges
should be located at "upper" wetland elevations. The vegetation in Area A was better than expected
(size and density). There are a number of sweet gums coming in so we made a suggestion to be aware
of their increased presence on site.
The proposed wetland area across the creek from veg plot 1 and gauge M1 was checked. The
southernmost portion of this wetland polygon (labeled as Area B) did not show hydric indicators. This
area will likely need to be removed from proposed wetland credit. In addition, DWR requires one gauge
be installed in a location similar to what is indicated on Figure 2.1.
The group then walked the west side of the stream down to gauge M2. Gauge M2 was also in a
depressional landscape position. Another area noted as Area C needs to be checked regarding extent of
wetlands proposed. Finally, we visited the bottom of the project were the pond was initially. The
amount of ponded water has decreased but tree growth is limited. The two gauges in this area M5 and
M6 are both located in depressional areas. Moreover, the proposed wetland area around the edge of
the pond needs to be checked for wetland status as indicated on Figure 2.1
The stream on site showed good bed and bank features. The channel was dry in most areas but did not
have vegetation growing in the channel.

Overall the site has improved over the years, particularly from the vegetative standpoint. However, as
evidenced by the site visit, some suppositions regarding the status of hydric soil and wetland extent
were verified.
In summary, DWR recommends to the IRT that for any wetland credit to be released, there should be at
least 3 groundwater monitoring gauges installed (now) and a wetland delineation performed to check
the areas mentioned which DWR believes to be at risk. DWR is ok with releasing stream credit.

t'
��e.:®..4. e(�•(�+OV49P,
n