20101024 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20211210

INTERNATIONAL
Memorandem
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Wetland Boundary Adjustment
DMS Project ID. 94648
NC DEQ Contract# 003277
USACE Action ID: SAW-2013-01280, DW R# 14-1024
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105-060040
Date Prepared: November 24, 2021
Subject: Revisions to wetland boundary adjustment
Recorded By: Scott King
This memo serves as a revision to the previous wetland boundary adjustment submitted on 1/15/21.
The UT to Town Creek Restoration Project originally proposed to Restore a total of 2.56 acres of
wetlands and Create an additional 1.56 acres of wetlands within the floodplains along both sides of
Reaches 1, 2, and 3. The groundwaterwell monitoring conducted over the previous five years has
demonstrated that all the wetlands have clearly met the hydrology success criteria of 9% as stated in the
mitigation plan (often by a substantial margin —the lowest performing well in MY5 had a hydroperiod of
35%). However, during an IRTfield visit during the monitoring phase on 6/11/19 a few soil borings dug
in the generalvicinity of groundwaterwell #4appeared to be more marginalto upland in appearance.
The borings were dug in this location as the area appearedto be less 'wet' overall thanthe rest of the
surrounding wetland area and had dense/gravellysoil. The IRT suggested conducting a closer review of
the wetlands prior to closeout to adjust the boundary as needed. It was suggested that while some of
the area of concern seemed likely to be removed as credited wetland, there certainly appeared to be
plenty of wet areas adjacent to these potentially removed areas. Figure 1 shows the original wetland
boundaries for the southern portion of project around the area in question. The IRT encouraged Baker
to look for and add any new wetland areas to makeup for any upland area that required removal. As
such, Baker conducted a thorough field and GIS evaluation of the area and modified the wetland
boundary to remove the questionable area and add new wetland area (as Creation) as detailed in the
original boundary adjustment memo dated 1/15/21.
However, during the IRTsitevisit as part of project closeout activities on 6/3/21, a portion of the newly
added areas of Wetland Creation at the southern extent (below XS-11) were questioned by the IRT.
These areas did not appear as 'wet' as the other areas added and the IRT requested that if they were
ultimately to be included as credited wetland area, theywould require additional groundwater
monitoring. The meeting minutes from that sitevisit were approved on 7/7/21 and provide a more
detailed summaryof the discussion that day. They can be found in the Appendix of the MY6 report.
Given the feedback from that IRTwalkover, Baker electedto remove all of the Wetland Creation area
that was considered questionable, as well as much of the rest of the newly added Wetland Creation
area, excepting a small portion of the very wet area around XS-10 and Veg Plot 11. This area is actually
quite near the Restored wetlands being removed from crediting, and was the original area specifically

pointed out by Mac Haupt (of DEQ) during the first IRTwaIkover in 2019 as being what he would
recommend Baker add as recompense for any lost wetlands. It is also by far the wettest portion of the
added Wetland Creation area, has abundant tall vegetation, and was readily accepted by the IRT during
the walkover in June of 2021. At an area of 0.192 acres, it adequately covers the credits lost from the
removal of the nearby Restored wetlands. Figure 2 shows this final area as well as all of the previously
added Creation areas (which have subsequently been removed from consideration) and their previous
soil borings. This very limited area of Wetland Creation (only a small subset of the original) is being
submitted for the purpose of facilitating a smoother closeout after MY7. Photos of this area were
collected during the previous field investigation in January 2021 and have been included again here,
while more recent photos were taken of this area in November 2021 and are also included here.
Additionally, as per IRT request during the field visit in June 2021, the revised Creation area addition was
assessed forvegetationthrough the collection of 2 temporary vegetation transects, each approximately
the size of a standard monitoring veg plot. As noted above and as documented in the photolog, the area
as a whole has quite tall, abundant vegetation consisting of sycamore, persimmon, blackgum, green ash,
swamp chestnut oak, willow oak, box elder, tulip poplar, buttonbush, silky dogwood, and black willow,
with thick herbaceous vegetation dominated by tearthumb, soft rush, and woolgrass (amongst other
rushes and sedges). These species are overwhelmingly rated as wet for their facultative indicator status
for the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont region. The first vegetation transect identified 14 stems (for a
density of 566 stems/ac), all but 3 of which were well over 6 ft tall. The second vegetation transect
identified 15 stems (for a density of 607 stems/ac), of which 8 were well over 6 ft tall (and the
remainder averaging about 4 ft tall). Figure 3 shows the approximate location of the transects within
the revised Creation area.
As previously noted in the original wetland adjustment memo, the Creation Wetland area being added
will be credited at a 3:1 ratio, while the Restored Wetland area being removed was credited at a 1:1
ratio. The newly revised wetlands on the project total 2.513 acres for the Restoration component and
1.752 acres for the Creation component, for a total of 3.097 Riparian Wetland Credits. Baker is
contracted for 3.0 wetlands credits. The revised wetland credits are shown below in Table 1:
Table I. Adjusted Wetland Areas
Area (ac) Ratio Credits
Original Wetlands
Riparian, Restoration
2.56
1:1
2.560
Riparian, Creation
1.56
3:1
0.520
Total Credits
3.080
Adjusted Wetlands
Riparian, Restoration
2.513
1:1
2.513
Riparian, Creation
1.752
3:1
0.584
Total Credits
3.097
Riparian Wetland Credit Difference
+0.017
It should also be noted that there are an additional —1 acre of existing jurisdictionaI wetlands on the
project that were enhanced for no credit on the project. These wetlands had cattle excluded, were

planted, and aImost certainlyexperienced improved hydrology along with the adjacent restored
wetlands.
Most sincerely,
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Scott. King@ mba kerintl.com
919-219-6339 [M]

0 50 100 200
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
300 Figure 1.
Feet UT to Town Creek
Orginal Wetland Boundaries

N
A
10 Reach 2
MW 8 o
0
Restoration Area O
Removed (0.047 ac) o / �'; Creation Area
r� Q
Reach 6
ti y �•
rConservation Easement
Soil Borings
O Hydric
o Marginal
o Upland
Vegetation Plots
0 Groundwater Monitoring Wells
® Flow Pressure Transducers
Cross Section - Pool
Cross Section - Riffle
Stream Top of Bank
Project Stream Centerlines
® Restoration Area Removed
Revised Creation Area Added
® Previously Submitted Creation Area
Revised Wetland Boundaries
Restoration
CCreation
Jurisdictional
r
• • ii'
•
0
0 0
r0 o
0 / ti
0 0 0
0 0
O
' o
C9 O XS-11 q'
0 0
12
13
Nd
O O
77 MW 5
`\ O 0 O
XS-12
O s-
Reach 3 O` , 0 '
s ' XS-13 .
::. O
• •
�sMw 10•
• • • lD
•
MW 6 . \o
Figure 2.
Michael Baker 0 50 100 200 300 UT to Town Creek
I N T E R N AT I O N A L
Feet Wetland Boundary Adjustment
Rev: 11 Nov2021

Figure 3.
Michael Baker 0 12.5 25 50 UT to Town Creek
I N T E R N AT Z O N A L Feet Wetland Boundary Adjustment
Rev: 23Nov2021

UT to Town Creek: Wetland Boundary Adjustment Photographs (from 1/12/21)
Soft rush in area with shallow standing water
Wetland vegetation and standing water in floodplain
Wetland vegetation and standing water in floodplain
Wetland vegetation and standing water in floodplain
Hydric soil
Hydric soil

UT to Town Creek: Wetland Boundary Adjustment Photographs (from 11/23/21)
Abundant, tall, diverse vegetation present
Abundant, tall, diverse vegetation present (buttonbush
Vegetation Transect 42
Abundant, tall, diverse vegetation present (buttonbush
in foreground)
Vegetation Transect 41
Hydric soil present throughout

UT to Town Creek: Wetland Boundary Adjustment Photographs (from 11/23/21)
Abundant, tall, diverse vegetation present
Dense herbaceous layer present dominated by
tearthumb and various rushes and sedges
Abundant, tall, diverse vegetation present (silky
dogwood in foreground)
Abundant, tall, diverse vegetation present
Dense herbaceous layer present dominated by
tearthumb and various rushes and sedges
Abundant, tall, diverse vegetation present

From: Davis. Erin B
To: Baker. Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: UT to Town Creek project questions
Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:22:15 AM
Attachments: imaoe001.ono
imaae002.ona
UTtoTownCreek Memo WetlandAdiustment 2021Nov23 WithAttachments.odf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20141024 v.1
Doc Type: Mitigation Information
From: King, Scott[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 2:25 PM
To: Kim Browning <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: UT to Town Creek project questions
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Here is the current memo detailing the wetland boundary adjustment, describing the wetlands
pretty well I think. If approved though, I would take that little wedge shape out of the middle of the
wetland (as shown on the figure I sent earlier in pink) and adjust the lower boundary down slightly
(that entire area is very wet) to cover ourselves for the buffer tool SMU loss (as explained in my first
email). Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks again,
Scott
Scott King, LSS, PWS I Soil Scientist - Ecosystem Restoration Group I Michael Baker International
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201 1 Asheville, NC 28806 1 [0] 828-412-6102 1 [M] 919-219-6339
[e-mail] I www.mbakerintl.com
Michael
# .* 1 e Moke a Difference
INT -ERN A T 1 0 N A L
Connect with us: V MM%wo
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browningca�usace.army.mil>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 11:55 AM
To: King, Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: UT to Town Creek project questions
Thanks Scott. Please send that and I'll follow up with you Monday. I'm in the field today.
Have a good weekend

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
919-946-5107
From: King, Scott <Scott,[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, Dec 10, 2021, 11:32 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: UT to Town Creek project questions
Hello again,
I forgot to mention that I have a photolog and veg assessment of the newly proposed wetland area if
you want to see that too.
Thanks,
Scott
Scott King, LSS, PWS I Soil Scientist - Ecosystem Restoration Group I Michael Baker International
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201 1 Asheville, NC 28806 1 [O] 828-412-6102 1 [M] 919-219-6339
scott.kingpmbakerintl.com I Blockedwww.mbakerintl.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<I<imberly.D.Browningca�usace.army.mil>
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 4:45 PM
To: King, Scott <Scott.King(@mbakerintl.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: UT to Town Creek project questions
Thanks Scott. Let me review this and I'll get back with you hopefully tomorrow.
Have a good evening
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-----Original Message -----
From: King, Scott <Scott.KingPmbakerintl.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2021 11:54 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberl)I.D.BrowningCo�usace.army.mil>
Cc: Davis, Erin B <erin.davis(@ncdenr.gov>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] UT to Town Creek project questions
Good morning Kim,

In making some adjustments to the UT to Town Creek project in Stanly County, Harry Tsomides of
DIMS has asked me to run a couple of things by you (and the IRT in general) to confirm them before
we finalize the MY6 report. If the IRT has any concerns, we'd like to have them sorted them out now
rather than next year at closeout. We had an IRT field visit back in June of this year and I see from
our meeting summary memo that you weren't actually in attendance that day. That's a shame. I
was specifically asked to coordinate with you as I understand Todd has a temporary re -assignment
coming up(?). However, we can include him in on the conversation if you think that's prudent and
he wouldn't be bothered by that. I have also included Erin Davis of DEQ as she was there and part of
the discussion as well.
Basically, we have a situation where at a previous field visit back in 2019, Mac Haupt discovered a
small pocket (0.047 ac) within our wetland restoration area that hadn't developed hydric soils and
suggested we pull it out and add -in an adjacent area that was very wet. As per DIMS suggestion, we
ended up doing a larger scale re -delineation of a much broader area, adding significantly more
proposed wetlands (as Creation at 3:1) to the project. At the recent field visit in June of this year,
much of this wetland area was accepted except for a narrow section at the southern end. It does
not visually look as wet as the upper portions we added. As such, we were asked to either remove
this portion from our new proposed wetland area or install a groundwater well or two and
document the area much more thoroughly. As we didn't need all the newly added wetland area
anyway to compensate for the lost area, and didn't want to have install a well for the next two years,
we decided to remove this controversial area entirely and simply propose keeping only the minimum
area needed to compensate for the lost wetlands. We ended up dropping almost all of the originally
proposed wetland addition and have only kept the wettest area that had been readily accepted in
the field that day (about 0.20 ac). The area we kept is also the exact location that Mac suggested we
add back in 2019! 1 had hoped by making these changes the wetlands would be more readily
acceptable by the IRT and easier on Baker as the area is small and simpler to document (veg and
soils) and wouldn't require any more groundwater wells, etc (please see the attached Figure).
However, by using this small area of added wetland as compensation, it altered the results of the
buffer tool analysis which we had used to obtain extra stream credits for the project. We had been
told to re -run the analysis using the older version of the buffer tool (the same one we had used
originally) just with the new wetland area. It has resulted in the loss of 2.680 SMU, putting us below
our official Table 1 credit numbers. So, with all that background in place, here are the questions
DIMS wanted me to run by you:
-As we are now technically down 2.680 SMU from our official credit table from the loss of buffer tool
credits, DIMS is concerned that there will need for mit plan or contract adjustments and Baker is
concerned about loss of credits for payment. DIMS suggested that if the number is really that small
that the IRT might just let it slide and closeout with full credits intact, meaning no further mit plan or
contract adjustments needed. Is that possible? If so, we will keep the wetland area as we now have
it and move forward. However, if that's not acceptable I would offer an easy solution to make things
simpler all around. I can adjust the proposed wetland boundary to kick out a small triangle of about

1,400 ft2 in size that is affecting the buffer tool credit results (see the attached figure). We would
still be able to compensate for the wetland loss but not lose any SMU. I had thought about that a
while back but felt uncomfortable obviously skewing a boundary for that purpose. It felt like I was
gerrymandering the boundary for a self-centered intent! However, with the IRT's permission, I could
do that and it would solve that issue. But if being off by 2.680 SMU isn't a big deal to you then we
can just go with what we have.
-DMS had suggested that IF the loss of 2.680 SMU must be addressed and IF my proposed wetland
boundary adjustment isn't acceptable (where I cut out a small triangle) then maybe we could be
allowed to us the newer buffer tool, which I am told allows for more credit around stream terminals
and so would easily allow for more stream credits. Honestly, I would prefer not to have get ahold of
the new tool and start from scratch though.
-And finally, is the overall wetland adjustment plan acceptable to the IRT? Any questions or
concerns? I had previously contacted Todd back in July about my plan and he was agreeable to it
(see attached email) but that was before I had anything finalized to show him. It was just
theoretical. I have also attached the meeting minutes from the June 2021 IRT field visit as well.
I totally understand this is A LOT to throw at you! I would love to discuss this further over the phone
(or Teams or Zoom) if you like but I wanted both of you to have the full discussion and explanation in
text first. And again, we can certainly get up with Todd too if you feel that's needed. Erin, I'm glad
to have you as part of the conversation as well as you were there in June 2021. If either of you have
any questions, please give me a call on my cell 919-219-6339.
Thank you very much!
Scott
Scott King, LSS, PWS I Soil Scientist - Ecosystem Restoration Group I Michael Baker International
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201 1 Asheville, NC 28806 1 [0] 828-412-6102 1 [M] 919-219-6339
[e-mail]<mailto:scott.kingCo�mbakerintl.com> I Blockedwww.mbakerintl.com
<Blockedhttp://Blockedwww.mbakerintl.com/>