20141024 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20211213

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: UT to Town Creek project questions
Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 11:20:50 AM
Attachments: UTtoTownCreek WetlandBoundarvAdiustments Fio2 rev 2021Dec08.odf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20141024 v.I
Doc Type: Mitigation Information
-----Original Message -----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:Kimberly.D.Browning�q)usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 2:14 PM
To: King, Scott <Scott.King(ombakerintl.com>
Cc: Davis, Erin B <erin.davis(0ncdenr.gov>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner(0ncdenr.gov>; Tsomides, Harry
<harry [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. <mailto:report.spam(q_)ac. go
Hi Scott
Thanks for all the information. The wetland adjustment plan is acceptable to the IRT. Given that 2.680 credits is a
small amount, and removing sections of wetlands and applying the new buffer tool complicates the issue, no further
mitigation plan or contract adjustments will be needed. We'll plan on closing the site out as originally proposed.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-----Original Message -----
From: King, Scott <Scott.King( mbakerintl.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2021 11:54 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning(a,)usace.army.mil>
Cc: Davis, Erin B <erin.davis(a,)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 DMS 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 DMS 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! I 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 DMS 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, DMS
is concerned that there will need for mit plan or contract adjustments and Baker is concerned about loss of credits
for payment. DMS 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 2011 Asheville, NC 28806 1 [0] 828-412-6102 1 [M] 919-219-6339
[e-mail]<mailtoscott.king�a-)mbakerintl.com>
https://urldefense.com/v3/ http://www.mbakerintl.com _!lHYmSToolPN09u9jQhl Lt,gwRknSJ16r7bm-
xWvmudYsLCCFKPOgTIcsyzBEs303sHcwdi00Udl0$ <Blockedhttp://www.mbakerintl.com/>

N - Conservation Easement
Soil Borings
O Hydric
0 Marginal
10 Reach 2 O Upland
Vegetation Plots
MW 8 0
0 Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Restoration Area O Triangle to be cut out ® Flow Pressure Transducers
Removed (0.047 ac) 0 (1,400 ft2 or 0.03 ac)
� / Cross Section -Pool
XS-9 O '
O
0 XS-10 Cross Section - Riffle
MW 4 O O Stream Top of Bank
O CC)
o 11 Project Stream Centerlines
Reach 6 o
Oo� ® Restoration Area Removed
00 / F.
o
0 0 Revised Creation Area Added
15 XS 1615 O 0® Previously Submitted Creation Area
0 0 Revised Wetland Boundaries
0 Restoration
C90 XS-11 C Creation
0 0 Jurisdictional
O 0
A 12 - r
�13
7 MW 5F
f... •
O O 0 2 O
0 sue.
s` Reach 3 _' o d' 4 - ,
o• o
s ' XS-13 .
�0
O
0
i F 0 14a O
O 0 .. 0
' -J 27•�T .
MW 6 0 _
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