20141024 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2021_20220113

ID#* 20141024
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/13/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/13/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
ID#:* 20141024
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Ut to Town Creek
County: Stanly
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: UTtoTown_94648_MY6_2021.pdf 28.26MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature: *
/y ta"m;�

UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option A
Final Year 6 Monitoring Report
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 94648; NC DEQ Contract No. 003277
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 6
Year of Data Collection: 2021
Year of Completed Construction: 2016
Submission Date: December 2021
Submitted To: NCDEQ —Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 003277

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 2011 Asheville, NC 28806
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
December 17, 2021
Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr — Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Response to DMS Comments for MY6 Draft Report
UT to Town Creek Mitigation Site, Stanly County
DMS Project 494648, DEQ Contract 43277
Mr. Tsomides:
Office: 828.412.6102 1 Fax:[phone]
Please find enclosed our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments
received December 16, 2021 in reference to the UT to Town Creek Mitigation Site MY6 Draft Report. We
have revised the document in response to the review comments as outlined below.
DMS MY6 Draft Report Comments:
1) References to stream "close out" should be removed or reworded. Please note that the stream portions of
the project are not technically closed out yet, but are expected to close with the wetland portions in 2023;
standard monitoring may cease since this is a 5-year stream project and the streams were performing well
at the 2021 close out meeting. Like you state in the June 2021 meeting minutes, while standard stream
monitoring may cease, any subsequent damage to the system that occurs prior to complete project closeout
must be repaired.
Response: Baker has revised all sections of the report that refer to the stream portion of the project
as being closed -out and has also specifically noted that any damage must be repaired.
2) Please make final changes to the stream and wetland maps and associated credits as discussed in recent
communications with DMS and IRT, regarding the minor stream credit shortfall resulting from the
revised/updated wetland shapes (2.680 SMU). Please note the buffer method version run and summarize
in the appendix the wetland and stream updates in a single table, while leaving Table 1 Project Mitigation
Components unchanged; the project credits cannot be changed without a mitigation plan addendum, which
is not necessary at this time; please revise the digitals accordingly and submit a complete set of final
digitals.
Response: Baker made the revisions as requested.
3) Odd pages of Table 9 are printing upsidedown in the hard copy.
Response: Baker will correct this error in the final printed hardcopies.
4) Please optimize/compress the report PDF if possible.
Response: Baker has compressed the report PDF as much as possible.
As requested, two final hardcopies will be submitted to you along with a flash drive containing the report PDF
along with all digital support files. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions
regarding our response submittal.
Sincerely,
144-14-
Scott King, LSS, PWS

UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option
Final Year 6 Monitoring Report
Stanly County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 94648; NC DEQ Contract No. 003277
SAW-2013-01280; DWR#14-1024
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License 4 F-1084
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. i
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECTNO. 94648)
YEAR 6MONITORING REPORT- 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................I
2.0 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................3
2.1 Stream Monitoring.................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring............................................................................................. 4
2.3 Wetland Monitoring.................................................................................................. 4
2.4 BMP Mo nito ring....................................................................................................... 4
3.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Pro)ect Mitigation Component
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Pro)ect Contacts
Table 4 Pro)ect Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figures
2-2c
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
*Table
5a-g
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
*Table
5h
Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table
6a
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table
6b
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Appendix C Vegetation PlotData
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
*Figure
3
Cross -sections with Annual Overlays
*Table
10
Baseline Stream Data Summary
*Table
1la
Cross-section Morphology Data
*Table
1 lb
Stream Reach Morphology Data
*Figure
4
Reach Profile Survey
*Figure
5a-d
Reachwide Pebble Count Distribution with Annual
Overlays
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ii
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECTNO. 94648)
YEAR 6MONITORING REPORT- 2021

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure 6 Wetland Gauge Graphs
*Figure 7 In -stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure 8 Monthly Rainfall Data
Table 12 Wetland Mitigation Area Well Success
Table 12a Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
*Table 13 Verification of In -stream Flow Conditions
*Table 14 Verification of BarMull Events
Hydrologic Data Photos
Appendix F IRT Meeting Minutes
Appendix G Wetland Boundary Adjustment Memo
*Note: The figures and tables marked above with an asterisk are not included as part of this Year 6
Monitoring Report, but were left listed in the Table of Contents to explain the otherwise out -of -sequence
figure/table numbering and appendix designations. For clarity, Michael Baker wishes to preserve the
continuity of the labeling for these features between monitoring years to avoid confusion. These figures
and tables have been included in past reports but will no longer be included again as the stream portion of
this project no longer has standard stream monitoring.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. iii
UT TO TOWN CREEKRESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECTNO. 94648)
YEAR 6MONITORING REPORT- 2021

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., (Michael Baker) restored 5,554 linear feet (LF) and enhanced 791 LF (447
LF of Enhancement I and 344 LF of Enhancement II) of perennial and intermittent stream along an Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to Town Creek and three additional unnamed tributaries. Also as part of this Project, Michael
Baker restored and created 4.12 acres of riparian wetlands and enhanced 1.00 acre of riparian wetlands and
constructed two wetland best management practices (BMPs) upstream of the mitigation areas. Though no
mitigation credit is being sought for wetland enhancement, additional stream mitigation credit is being sought
for the inclusion of the proposed stormwater BMPs and the extended riparian buffer width within the
conservation easement. This report documents and presents the Year 6 monitoring data as required during the
monitoring period.
The primary goals of the Project were to improve aquatic habitat degradation by improving ecologic functions
and reducing non -points source loads from agricultural run-off to the impaired areas as described in the Lower
Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) and as identified below:
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduction
in nutrient and sediment loading, improving substrate and in -stream cover, and reduction of in -stream
water temperature;
• Improve both aquatic and riparian aesthetics;
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along UT to Town Creek and its tributari es through the Project
area;
• Prevent cattle from accessing the project area thereby protecting riparian and wetland vegetation and
reducing excessive bank erosion;
• Restore historical wetlands, create new wetlands, and enhance/preserve existing wetlands to improve
terrestrial habitat and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to UT to Town Creek and the Little Long
Creek Watershed.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore, enhance, create, and protect riparian wetlands and buffers to reduce nutrient and pollutant
loading by particle settling, vegetation filtering and nutrient uptake;
• Construct wetland BMPs on the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 to improve water quality by
capturing and retaining stormwater run-off from the adjacent cattle pastures to allow for the biological
removal of nutrient pollutant loads and for sediment to settle out of the water column;
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable channels with access to
their geomorphic floodplains;
• Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools and areas of water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion;
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project reaches;
• Establish native stream bank, riparian floodplain, and wetland vegetation, protected by a permanent
conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, shade
the stream to decrease water temperature, and provide improved wildlife habitat quality.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEKRESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECTNO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

UT to Town Creek Restoration Project — Option A (site) is located in Stanly County, approximately 1.7 miles
west of the Town of New London, within cataloging unit 03040105 of the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin (see
Figure 1). The site is located in a North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) -Targeted Local
Watershed (03040105060040). The Project involved stream restoration and enhancement, as well as wetland
restoration, creation, and enhancement along UT to Town Creek and several of its tributaries, which had been
impaired due to historical pasture conversion and cattle grazing.
On June 3rd of 2021, the IRT held an on -site meeting to review early closeout for wetland credits and normal
closeout for stream credits. As detailed in the meeting minutes found in Appendix F, it was ultimately decided
that the wetland portion of the project will require continued monitoring through Year 7. As a result, while the
stream portion of the project was performing well and no longer requires the standard monitoring protocols, it
has not officially closed -out and any subsequent damage to the system must be repaired. Monitoring reports
for Years 6 and 7 will therefore consist of vegetation assessments within the wetland areas, wetland gauge
monitoring, and invasive species management.
During Year 6 monitoring, vegetation conditions were performing at over 90% for planted acreage and close to
100% for invasive/encroachment area categories. As noted in Table 6b, an area (VPA6-1) of low herbaceous
vegetation and poor growth rates has continued to persist from MY2. This area is located along Reach 2
between Vegetation Plot 14 and 13 and consists of approximately 0.06 acres. This area was supplemental
planted with gallon plants, annual seed, perennial grass plugs and appropriate amount of lime in May 2020, but
due to harsh temperatures and compacted clay soils this area is expected to have a high mortality. Michael
Baker plans to continue seed and soil amendments to this area as noticeable improvements are being made.
VPA data and photographic documentation collected during Year 6 monitoring are located in Appendix B. See
Tables 6a through 6b for VPA data documentation.
For Monitoring Year 6, no areas of invasive species were reported as none of the areas exceed the mapping
threshold of 1,000 square feet (SF) and due to successful treatments conducted throughout 2021. Two treatment
sessions were performed in April 2021 treating invasive species throughout the entire site. Species targeted
consist of primarily Chinese privet (Ligustmm sinese) along with multi -flora rose (Rosa multiflora), princess
tree (Paulownia tomentosa), and parrot feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum). The presence of these invasive
species tend to occur predominantly in areas of the easement where mature woody vegetation is present and
along the easement fence line with the exception of parrot feather found within the stream channel. These
species will continue to be monitoring and treated as necessary for the remaining monitoring years.
Based on data collected from the fourteen monitoring plots located within the credited wetland areas during
Year 6 monitoring the density of total planted stems per plot ranges from 445 to 769 stems per acre with a tract
mean of 604 stems per acre. Therefore, the Year 6 data demonstrate that the site has exceeded the minimums
success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 and is expected to meet in Year 7. The presence of
volunteer woody vegetation was noted in vegetation plots; however, these species were not included in the
average vegetation plot densities calculated for assessing the prof ect's interim success criteria. Vegetation stem
counts are summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C.
Groundwater monitoring data collected during the growing season (March 27 through November 5) of Years
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 documented that all ten groundwater monitoring wells exhibited soil saturation within 12 inches
of the ground surface for the minimum success criteria hydroperiod of nine percent (9%) or 20 consecutive days
during the growing season. Five of the ten groundwater wells' hydroperiods exceeded 50% with a high of
83.8%. The lowest hydroperiod was for well 8 at 12.6%. See Appendix E for a plot of wetland gauge data as it
relates to monthly precipitation for Monitoring Year 6 (Figure 6). The Monitoring Year 6 wetland restoration
success results are depicted in Table 12, and a summary of wetland attainment for all ten monitoring gauges is
depicted in Table 12a. See Figure 2 (CCPV) in Appendix B for a depiction of wetland mitigation areas and
corresponding gauge locations.
Also, as explained in detail in the Wetland Boundary Adjustment memo found in Appendix G, a small area of
additional wetland has been added as Creation (0.192 ac) as suggested by the IRT to compensate for the small
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEKRESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECTNO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

area of Restoration removed (0.047 ac) following the IRT site visit in June of 2019. This new area is but a
small subset of the originally expanded Creation area submitted for addition in February 2021 as part of the
MY5/Closeout report. Based on IRT comments on these areas during their field visit in June of 2021, much of
these have been removed. The small area retained for Creation was the wettest looking portion and was readily
accepted by the IRT in the field. It is also located very near the Restoration area being removed and was the
area specifically pointed out by Mac Haupt (DEQ) during the June 2019 field visit as wetlands he suggested
Michael Baker add. For these reasons, only this small, revised wetland area is being requested for addition as
Creation (at a 3:1 ratio) to help ensure a smooth closeout of wetland credits next year.
However, as a consequence of the revised Creation wetland boundary, the results from the USACE Stream
Buffer Credit Calculator spreadsheet tool were affected as well. The additional credited wetland Creation area
must be accounted for in the tool. As per DMS/IRT instruction, the same tool version (1/19/2018) that had
been originally used for credit calculation was used here again for the revised analysis. The results indicate
that by adding that small wetland Creation area, the project loses 2.68 SMUs as compared to the original
analysis conducted in 2018 for the mitigation plan. For a more detailed explanation of this analysis, please see
the Wetland Boundary Adjustment memo in Appendix G for the spreadsheet tool results and maps. The report
e-submission provides the Excel spreadsheet and GIS shapefiles as well.
The reduction of credits from the revised buffer tool was raised with the Corps by email along with a detailed
explanation of all of the revisions that lead to the change. In their response on 12/13/21, the Corps stated that
our current wetland boundary adjustment approach was acceptable and that the slight reduction in credits from
the buffer tool would not result in reduced closeout stream credits (given the small number of credits involved).
The email exchange is also included in the Wetland Boundary Adjustment memo in Appendix G.
Summary information/data related to the site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The monitoring plan for the site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland, and vegetation
components of the project. Complete stream and vegetation monitoring was successfully conducted for five
years, while wetland monitoring will be conducted for seven years. A reduced monitoring protocol is now
being conducted for the stream and vegetation portion of the project until final closeout approval with the
wetlands in Year 7. Monitoring methods used will follow the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template, Version
1.2.1 — 12/01/09 and are based on the design approaches and overall project goals. To evaluate success criteria
associated with a geomorphically stable channel, hydrologic connectivity, and aquatic habitat diversity,
geomorphic monitoring methods will be conducted for project reaches that involve Restoration and
Enhancement Level I mitigation. The success criteria for the proposed Enhancement Level II reaches/sections
will follow the methods described in sections 2.1.3, 2.1.4, and 2.2, whereas, wetland restoration and creation
mitigation will follow those outlined in sections 2.3. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as
vegetation plots, permanent cross -sections, reference photograph stations, ground water gauges, flow gauges,
and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Figure 2 of Appendix B.
Year 6 monitoring data were collected from September through November 2021. Vegetation data and plot
photos were collected on September 14th of 2021.
2.1 Stream Monitoring
As noted in the meeting minutes from the June 2021 IRT field visit, the stream portion of the project has
performed well and a reduced monitoring protocol consisting of visual inspections has been allowed for the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEKRESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECTNO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

final two monitoring years, though the stream credits are not yet closed out. As such, any impacts to stream
function (bank scour, invasive species, etc.) will still be required to be addressed.
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
To determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are monitored
across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Level 1,
Version 4.2 (Lee 2008). The total number of quadrants was calculated using the CVS-NCEEP Entry Tool
Database version 2.3.1 (CVS-NCEEP 2012) with twenty (20) plots established randomly within the planted
riparian buffer areas. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of the
prof ect area. The size of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring was conducted between spring, after leaf -out has occurred, and fall prior
to leaf fall. Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events includes species
composition, density, survival, and stem height. Relative values were calculated, and importance values were
determined. Individual seedlings were marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years.
Mortality was determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the
current year's living, planted seedlings.
2.3 Wetland Monitoring
Ten groundwater monitoring stations were installed in restored, created, and enhanced wetland areas similar to
those from preconstruction monitoring to document hydrologic conditions at the Project site. The wetland
gauges are depicted on the CCPV figures (Figure 2) found in Appendix B. Installation and monitoring of the
groundwater stations have been conducted in accordance with the USACE standard methods outlined in the
ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2 (USACE 2005). To determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall
amounts were tallied using data obtained from the Stanly County WETS Station (USDA 2021) and from the
automated weather station at the North Stanly Middle School (NEWL) in New London, approximately 1.5 miles
southeast of the project site on Old Salisbury Road. Data from the NEWL station was obtained from the
CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website (2021).
Success criteria for wetland hydrology is met when each wetland site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil
surface for 9 percent of the growing season as documented in the approved Mitigation Plan. To document the
hydrologic conditions of the restored site, each groundwater monitoring station has been monitored for five
years post -construction or until wetland success criteria are met. Visual inspection of proposed wetland areas
was conducted to document any visual indicators that would be typical of jurisdictional wetlands. This could
include, but is not limited to, vegetation types present, surface flow patterns, stained leaves, and ponded water.
Wetland plants are documented along with other visual indicators noted above. Wetland restoration and
creation areas that exhibit all three wetland indicators (the presence of hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and
wetland vegetation) after construction and through the monitoring period validate wetland restoration and
creation success.
2.4 BMP Monitoring
The wetland BMPs located at the upstream extent of Reaches 4 and 7 will be visually monitored for
vegetative survivability and permanent pool storage capacity during the remaining monitoring period.
Maintenance measures will be performed as necessary.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEKRESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECTNO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only. Version 4.2.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (formerly NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program).
2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation_
November 7, 2011.
2009. Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities, revised January 2009. Raleigh, NC.
2009. Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Report, v. 1.2.1. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
State Climate Office of North Carolina, 2021. CRONOS Database, North Stanly Middle School (NEWL),
Stanly County, NC. http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=NEWL&ternporal=sensormeta
United States Department of Agriculture, 2021. WETS Table. Climate Data for Stanly County, NC. Wets
Station: Albemarle, NC 0090, FIPS: 37167, 1971- 2018. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/37167/wets
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential
Wetland Sites," WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2), U.S. Army Enginecr
Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEKRESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECTNO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

APPENDIX A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM RALEIGH, NC:
Take 1-40 West toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Take Exit 293 (1-440/US-64 W/US-1) toward Sanford/Wake Forest. Keep left at the fork
toward US-1 S/US-64 W. Take Exit 293A for US-1 S/US-64 W toward Sanford/Asheboro. Keep left at the fork toward US-1 S/US-64 W.
Continue on US-1 S/US-64 W towards Apex/Sanford/Asheboro. Take exit 98B to merge onto US-64 W towards Pittsboro/Asheboro. After
62 miles, turn left onto Connector Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 S. After 28.4 miles, take a slight left onto N Main St. After 1.1 miles, turn left
onto Old Salisbury Rd. Follow Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with Misenheimer Rd. / Steakhouse Rd. Go
through the intersection and continue on Old Salisbury Rd. for approximately 0.4 miles and the Project site is on the right accessed via
a dirt farm road.
1%
ILIl
R
Rich
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
and is encompassed by a recorded conservation
easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.
Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or
along the easement boundary and therefore access by
the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized
personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development,
oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is
permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined
roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
:::�:::::::::.::::::::. J
....................................
. ........
.....................�::::::::::::::: :...
I1roI1 11
:. Project Site
35.4322 N,-80.2464 W
..............................................................................::::::INTER I
Figure 1. Vicinty Map Map Vicinity
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A �'
Stanly County, NC
Reference: NCDOT 02 & NC One Map
NC DMS Project No. 94648
NCDEQ Contract No. 003277
Project Site
2021 0 1,500 3,000 1" = 3000' Stanly County, NC
Feet
LEGEND
QProject Area
— Streams
US Highways
— Roads
Major Waterways
0 Municipalities
Yadkin (HUC 03040105060-040)

b
p
.o
0
-°
fi
GZ,
K a
o
.p
3 g ..°
'"
�
o
W �
o
o P
o o
o
W �
W �
W �
ay •� `�
p;,
� a�i
� �.i
-- °_ �
045 W
.: °
8 `� W
y
a'
q t
A, A
A
o
3
y
o o
b o
y o
^ o
e v
C'.
�
�
�
cj `� ...���vvv���jjj
� o
❑C� y
e� ° � ,�
� �
�
5 0
. � ti
� a o
ba � o
wa3wU
�ww
LU
Caa.
wU
xadp
�aw
�a
e
o y
c
c
o
d
0
o
c
o
d
0
ai
e ..
o
a
d
v
0
Pr
0
y a
ai
� x
�w
°o v'
v y�
d
U
A W
°o
0
A
o �
zd
o
a
o
.o
Pr
�
m
O
O
k
is
y �
F
0 0
3
=z
e
�Y
o�
rl
a
r
.y
.G
.G
.G
.G
.G
F
•G
A F
Pr
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
A
.^ U
3�
C7
3�
FW
a
I a
a
a
a
a
aI
A
9
v
A
�
U
A
.ae
9
„
L
z
e
a
�
o
e
A
A
a
5�
y
N
A
u
A
0
c
�
o 0
a
e
^GGG
G

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project No ID. 94648
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Apr-2014
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Dec-2014
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Dec-2014
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Jan-2015
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Jul-2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan-2016
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan-2016
Planting of live stakes
Feb-2016
N/A
Mar-2016
Planting of bare root trees
Feb-2016
N/A
Mar-2016
Planting of herbaceous plugs
Jun-2016
N/A
May-2016
End of Construction
Dec-2016
N/A
Jan-2016
Survey of As -built conditions Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
A r-2016
Ma -2016
Jun-2016
Baseline Monitoring Report
May-2016
Jun-2016
Nov-2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec-2016
Nov-2016
Dec-2016
Invasive Treatment
N/A
N/A
Mar-2017
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec-2017
Nov-2017
Dec-2017
Additional Riparian Planting
N/A
N/A
Mar-2018
Invasive Treatment
N/A
N/A
Apr-2018
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec-2018
Nov-2018
Dec-2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec-2019
Nov-2019
Jan-2020
Additional Riparian Planting
N/A
N/A
Sep-2019
Invasive Treatment
N/A
N/A
Jun-2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec-2020
Dec-2020
Jan-2021
Additional Riparian Planting
N/A
N/A
Jan-2020
Invasive Treatment
N/A
N/A
Apr-2020
Year 6 Wetland Monitoring
Dec-2021
Nov-2021
Dec-2021
Invasive Treatment
N/A
N/A
Apr-2021
Year 7 Wetland Monitoring
Dec-2022
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Kathleen M. McKeithan, PE, Tel. [phone]
Scott King, PWS, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 458
H.J. Forest Service
Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Contact:
Matt Hitch, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
160 Walker Road
Wright Contracting, LLC.
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact:
Joe Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Tel. [phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
ArborGen, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Andrew Powers, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Andrew Powers, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A: DMS Project ID No. 94648
Project County
Stanly
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Yadkin - Pee Dee
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
03040105060040
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03-07-13
Within Extent of DMS Watershed Plan
Lower Yadkin RBRP, 2009
WRC Class (Warm Cool Cold)
Warm
% Project Easement Fenced/Demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase
No activity observed
Restoration Component Attribute Table
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Drainage Area ac.
532.1
616.6
766.7
53.7
48.9
127.8
29.2
Stream Order
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
Restored Length LF
1,204
1,782
829
447
344
1,340
399
Perennial P /Intermittent I
P
P
P
I
I
I
I
Watershed Type Rural, Urban, etc.
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Watershed LULC Distribution
Rural Residential
6%
1%
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
A -Row Crop
8%
0%
0%
14%
4%
0%
10%
A -Livestock
57%
85%
70%
59%
17%
88%
64%
Forested
8%
0%
0%
17%
62%
0%
21%
Other/Open Area
8%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
Commercial
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Roadway
3%
4%
2%
3%
<1%
0%
0%
Wooded -Livestock
0%
10%
28%
6%
4%
12%
5%
Open Water
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
Watershed Impervious Cover %
19%
5%
2%
4%
<4%
<1%
<1%
NCDWR AU/Index#
13-17-31-1-1
NCDWQ Classification
C
303 d Listed
No
303 (d) Listing Stressor
N/A
Total Acreage of Easement
5.35
8.01
3.79
1.97
1.06
3.55
1.36
Total Vegetated Easement Acreage
4.81
6.97
3.48
1.63
0.94
3.22
1.26
Total Planted Acreage for Restoration
4.81
6.97
3.48
1.63
0.94
3.22
1.26
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Ros en Classification(existing)
E4
E4
E4
B4
B4
B4
134a
Ros en Classification as -built
C4
C4
C4
B4
B4
C4b
134a
Valley Type
VIII
VIII
VIII
II
II
lI
II
Valley Sloe
0.0092
0.0092
0.0089
0.023
0.0447
0.0243
0.0495
Trout Waters Designation
No
Species of Concern, edangered etc.
Y/N
No*, Yes*
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Series
OaA
OaA
OaA
GoF
GoF
GoF
BaD
Depth
46"
46"
46"
36"
36"
36"
40"
Clay %
10-35%
10-35%
10-35%
5-27%
5-27%
5-27%
Oct-55
K
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.15-0.24
T
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
* Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) a BGEPA species is listed as occurring in Stanly County; however, suitable habitat is not located within
the Project area or within two miles of the Site.
** Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii ) A federally endangered species is listed as occurring within Stanly County and though
suitable habitat is present, a field study was conducted and no species were located within the Project area. NCNHP database indicated there are no
known populations of these species within two miles of the study area.
(NRCS, 2010a; NCDENR, 2007 & 2008; USFWS, 2012; NCNHP, 2012)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO.94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

-„R 4�*,
�,'�,� �{ �.:;.
G Stream Flow Cameras
o Crest Gauge
® Flow Pressure Transducers
• Groundwater Monitoring Wells
t
A Photo ID Points
— Cross Section -Pool
— Cross Section - Riffle
® BMPs�
Successful Vegetation Plots
01tl
UTtoTown_MY6_VPA_2021
Wetland Type
®Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation'
® Jurisdictional Wetlands
Stream Top of Bank
Reach 1 (Restoration)
Reach 2 (Restoration)
%
Reach 3 (Restoration)
Reach 4 (Enhancement 1)
Reach 5 (Enhancement 11)
Reach 6 (Restoration)
— Reach 7 (Restoration)
,/ �r I
OConservation Easement
/
x—x Fenceline
'' j'
a
North Carolina Figure 2 Overview DMS Project No. 94648
N 0 125 250 Monitoring Year: 6
BakerMichael Division of Current Condition Plan View
Mitigation Feet Drawn By: ADP
INTERNATIONAL Services 1"A = 250' UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A Date: 2021
Stanly County, NC Sheet: 1 of 3

A
,—V —P2--tJ
Crest Gauge
Flow Pressure Transducers
• Groundwater Monitoring Wells 3
Photo ID Points
Cross Section - Pool
VP3
Cross Section - Riffle 728/acre
X5
BMPs 8
8
Successful vegetation Plots
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Creation
VP4 F VP5
Jurisdictional Wetlands 445/acre 647/acre
Stream Top of Bank M 4 2
0
Reach 1 (Restoration) 5
Reach 2 (Restoration) Reach 1
Reach 3 (Restoration) (Restoration)
Reach 4 (Enhancement .
Reach 7 *' 12
.13
Reach 5 (Enhancement (Restoration)
Reach 6 (Restoration) VP6
is 9 567/acre
Reach 7 (Restoration)
Conservation Easement
4
15 nrvv7`
x-� Fenceline 4 3 16 0
"2 — 1—W,
R7 W1
.17
Reach 2
(Restoration)
7 VP7
486/acre
20
MW 1
21.
' T23
22*
MW3024
V.
445/acre
9
26 25
North Carolina Figure 2A DMS Project No. 94648
N 0 62.5 125 Iff, W T�Jm Division of Feet Current Condition Plan View Monitoring Year: 6
Mitigation Drawn By: ADP
1" 125 UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A Date: 2021
INTERNATIONAL Services A Stanly County, NC Sheet 2 of 3

MW 9 8
R
° 26,25
o Crest Gauge
f ® Flow Pressure Transducers
• Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Photo ID Points vP10
Cross Section - Pool 726/acre
Cross Section - Riffle
2'
BMPs
10
Successful Vegetation Plots
Vegetation Problem Area 8
® Wetland Restoration _MW 8
7.
Wetland Creation,
® Jurisdictional Wetlands
Stream Top of Bank
Reach 1 (Restoration)
Reach 2 (Restoration) �' VP11
769/acre
Reach 3 (Restoration) • _. s,
Reach 4 (Enhancement I) 28 _
Reach 5 (Enhancement II) MW 4 29Ile
0
Reach 6 (Restoration)11
f.
Reach 7 (Restoration) 30
Conservation Easement
Fenceline
�N RGW2
25... 31
15 6,22
23 24 26
/. 20. 21 .
„s _ 21
18�$ 32
16 17 �9 $
r p A 0 -1 3
3
{,
V P12
486/acre
34
12,,,
4k-
1 13 VP13
486/acrc
MW 5 354' "
36 C
V-
Reach 3 _��
(Restoration) 37'
VPA 6-1
38
VP14
607/acre
MW 10}39
F p-a
14
40 ,
i - ,, "
MW 6
North Carolina Figure 2B DMS Project No. 94648
MonitoringYear:6
Michael BakerDivision of N o sz.s 1zs Current Condition Plan View
Mitigation Feet Drawn By: ADP
INTERNATIONAL Services 1" =A 125• UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A Date: 2021
Stanly County, NC
Sheet: 3 of 3

Table 6a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
Reach ID Reaches 1 - 7
Planted Acreage 22.31 Assessment Date 9/30/2021
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
%of Planted
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
1. Bare Areas
material.
0.1 acres
VPA6-1
1
0.06
o
0.3/0
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
2. Low Stem Density Areas
based on MY4 or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
o
0.0%
Total
1
0.06
0.4%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
or Vigor*
obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
VPA6-1
1
0.06
o
0.3/o
Cumulative Total
2
0.12
0.7%
Easement Acreage 25.09
Mapping
pp g
CCPV
Number of
Combined
%of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
1000 SF
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
map scale).
5. Easement Encroachment
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
N/A
N/A
0
0.00
0.0° ,
Areas
map scale).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

U Q
U Q
U Q
U Q
q
•
•
o
� ^O
o
� ^O
o
� ^O
o
� 3
0
� 3
0
�
�
a
0
o y
o
o y
o
O y
o
0
0
0
3
o °'
a
o °'
a
o
4;
P.
� • 3
F,
� • 3
a,
� • 3
A.
o .�
F,
o .�
A.
o .�
A.
o .�
a
z
z
z
0
0
0
0
s
z
z
z
z
b
U
O
C
u
u
CW
•o
y
•o
y
•o
�
y
�
y
�
y
�
�
�
a
s
Q
a
r
3 0
3 0
3 0
3000O
o
N
7
G7
RUi
U
y
y
mC.0
w
y
Fi
3 O
Fi
3 O
Fi
3 O
Fi
z
Fi
z
Fi
z
C,
�
so. o
a.
o
a
C.0
w�
C.0
i

Vegetation Problem Area Photos

VPA 6-1— Photo of poor growth rates.
(11/22/21)
VPA 6-1— Photo of bare areas and areas of
poor growth rates.
(9/30/21)
VPA 6-1— Photo of poor growth rates.
(11/22/21)
VPA 6-1 Photo of poor growth rates.
(11/22/21)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 94648
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre)
Plot #
Stream/Wetland
a
Stems
Volunteers
Total4
Success Criteria Met?
VP1
728
567
1295
Yes
VP2
688
202
890
Yes
VP3
728
202
931
Yes
VP4
445
243
688
Yes
VP5
647
0
647
Yes
VP6
567
162
728
Yes
VP7
486
162
647
Yes
VP8
647
243
890
Yes
VP9
445
162
607
Yes
VP10
728
81
809
Yes
VP11
769
40
809
Yes
VP12
486
364
850
Yes
VP13
486
283
769
Yes
VP14
607
202aX12
809
Yes
Project AvgL
604
208
es
113uffer Stems: Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/ Wetland Stems: Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines.
3Volunteers: Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total: Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes.
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Report Prepared By Drew Powers
Date Prepared 9/21/2021 14:37
atabase name UTtoTown_84648_MY6_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1_2021.mdb
atabase location C:\Users\Andrew.Powers\Desktop
:)mputer name CARYLAPOWERS1
le size
ESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Ietadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
,oj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer
,oj, total stems
stems.
ots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
igor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
igor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
amage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
amage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
amage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
anted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing
LL Stems by Plot and spp
stems are excluded.
ROJ E CT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
,oject Code 94,
,oject Name UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A
This project proposes to restore 5,597 linear feet (LF) and enhance 791 LF (444 LF of Enhancement I and 347 LF of Enhancement II) of
escription stream along an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Town Creek and three additional unnamed tributaries and to restore, enhance, and
fiver Basin Yadkin -Pee Dee
length(ft)
tream-to-edge width (ft)
rea (sq m)
equired Plots (calculated)
ampled Plots
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 94648
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

�1■1■1�1■1■1■1��11
�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�111
��1■1■1�1■1■1■I�IIi�
�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�111
��1■1■1�1■1■1■1�111�
�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�111
��1■1■1�1■1■1■1�111�
�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�111
�f�■�
�
I
Ill
�I
s

wo
10
q
777
In
15
,!
77
;
!�-
|{(|/
!
[
\)
z`}
/_
\\
|
ZE2,
i!
(§
i
u
{§
)
<
f§
§
!_�,
k
4kk!)
[I!E
!!;§§§#§2f)§!!!/Eez;®;=e-;mmo
-
<.,.'..4°.=°z,
!
(\
-_12
um2
||««
[)
)•!\/
k),)§\{):e
rr§§
--
_\:■t§(if~t!§\]k;
!
22
[;;{3)/[{)]]/§{)({taaaaaaa,\$$§§!
<#tlI
3:�!l::a�::�z:JJJJJJJ&!!!ss!
!!&a

F
^' o
F
n �
F
ry e
I
o
I I
I I
I I
o
ry o
F
m o
ry a
e
ry o
F
F
O m
o
n
i4
Fw
rr�
O
O O
O mm
Nr+l
O
O
I
ry O
F
h O
N
m+t V
F o
i
ry
v
o a
iv o
m
°a
Q,
pw
w
o n
ry v
F
m
ry'
�
ry o
i
W
ry a
F
m o
m
N
�
7
�nen
a
o
a_ R
a
tO
a> H
n
n n
a > F
o
m o
n
a m
" o
-;7WW
a
WW U
U
� e
� �
Z
ez
z
ve
3
�
vg
Y
r
Y
a°
N
o � �
uz
auo
0.
12NNee
is
"
m
g�g�deve
m_
y=
12
0
o�
°
—
12
�
-
=�b—o
v
¢¢2m'-33°��
_u
doss
F
H
a
o'Ei
a
p
a a
a
m m

Vegetation Plot Photos

UT to Town Creek —Reach I
Vegetation Plot 1(9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 3 (9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 5 (9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 2 (9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 4 (9/14/2021)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

V e
=,t43
fg aW t 5$'
I

UT to Town Creek — Reach 3
Vegetation Plot 12 (9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 14 (9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 13 (9/14/2021)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT- OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO. 94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT - 2021

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
*No Stream Survey monitoring was required for Year 6.

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

N
O
N
O
N
�
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
N\
N
_
N
O
O
N
00
N
0
N
Ndo
= 0
0
N
O
a0
�
000
N
L
N
C14r
O
N
ON
3 N
O r
O
Q
Ln
M
�(M
�
mU
04-0
I-zCD
No
N
L
N
0
U
z �,
_
LO
U
O
00
L
a
O
O
O
O �
�
i
U
O
O
i. _
PN
O
O N
N
O
T
N
LO
� N
�
�O
O
N
N
O O O O
3 O
O
N
O
N (M -4
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
N O LO OD Lo O
O
(ul) Ile;ulem
(ul)
ao;empunoaE)
o; 4;daa
Z
QO �
\
w �
C7
Z I�
` N
5 \
O m
C7oc
W N
V O
N
� m
U
n
� H
Z w
oho
Q
N
O w
N
m
oC
c
�
c-I
w p
O
m
� U �
O
� c�
3
N
Q
� r C� °
'a
0
m W
n
I I I
w

N
O
N
N
O
�
N
Nizz
N
N
N
N
0
N
O
N
N
N
\
N
O
O
N
00
N
N
0
N
_
O
Q
N
O
•m N
(�
L
a0
14-1
N
L
CD
= O
N y
�j O
Q
M
Lp
r
L
O4-1
Ln
00
L
r
NO
L
N
O
N
V
N
O
O
U
�
•ice,
O
a
O
Q
N
N
O
oO
Nir
i
Uto
w
C
O
N
OCD
N
:.
N
76
N
U
N
O
N
N
O
� O
O O O O
N
O
O
N M
O
Ln
O Ln
O
LO
O
Ln O Ln O Lo O
N
N (M (M Ln
(ul) Ile;ulem
(ul)
ao;empunoaE)
o; 4;daa
Z
O
to �
Q �
W �
O m
o _
W N
~ M W
� N N
W
�
O "' N
�
U O
� Q
� m
� U
c
LD
o c
� w
O
U a`°i
�
� °c� U
t N .3 �
m
o
'a
c c U c U
c
O N
� m W
�
w

N
O
N
N
O
�
N
N
N
N
NLn
N
0
O
N
N
N
\
N
N
O
O
N
�
N
N
00
m
Mac
O
Q
N
O
_
•M N
6.
N
L
ao
L
a/
N
M
o
2
F=77
N N
r
O
/ 0
y
Q
rO
60
�..i
�
_
r-4
CD
N
V
N
O
Z
U
t
3
•ice,
O
O
NO
N
O
C
O
N
N
Oir
Uto
a
N
C
O
C14
O
N
r
:�.
N
Nro
�
it,
_
N
U
O
N
O
O O O O
i".
O
N
O
O
N (M -4
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
Ln O Ln O Ln O
N
N (M (M Ln
(ul) Ile;ulem
(ul)
ao;empunoaE)
o; 4;daa
Z
O
Q �
W �
V' i
Z I�
O m
O
0 �
W � N
� r-I
U � �
w
Z w �
�U
Q O
O w
H �
� m
tD U
c
�
c-I
w p
m
O
� m
U �
�
O
� � U
c�
M .3
N
�
�
U'
N
0 N
UL
� m W
>�
w

N
O
N
N
O
N
I�
N
N
N
N
N
O
_
N
O
N
N
N
\
N
N
O
N
O
N
pp
N
N
NLn
NO
O
O
N
•�— N
w
:
00
L
N
L
U
�G/i
ti ��
_
N
O
O
N r
\O
3 N
OM
O
=
R
M 0
�`�
}'U
O
LL
r
00
CD
CN
L
N
Lo
Uto
O
a
L
L
C
OCD
O
N
N
C
Oir
Ucu
Q
0
N
C
O
N
O
N
LO
:�.
O
N
N
U
O
N
N
O
O O O O
N M
�
O
O
O
24
O Ln O Ln
O
Ln
O
Ln
O Ln O Ln O
N
N
(M (M Ln
(ul) Ile;ulem
(ul)
ao;empunoaE)
o;
4;daa
LD
c-I
O
N
n
N
m
N
>N
Z
�
O
N �
C7
Z I�
\ p�
N
�
V
N
per[
�
w in
N '
110 �
110 -a
O
O
J �
� o
�
� N
� Lp O
� Ol �
U V1 �
w �
� H
z w �
O O
Q
Ow
H �
� m
LD U V
c
O C
N O
N �
U � �
� C �
-o L Q C7 0
c c U c U
O N
UL � m W
I I
w

N
0
N
N
w

N
O
N
N
O
�
N
N
N
N
N
N
_
N
O
N
O
N
N
\
N
O
N
O
N
pp
N
N
0
N
O
N
= o
+,
o
N�
L
V �
N
CD=
N
N
O
_� Q
O fy0
Cl)
M
O
t�
O
60
r
CZ)L
O
N
Z
U
toLL
O
O
r
a
O
CD
O
C
O
N
r
N
C
i
U
•�
Q
C
0
N
_
N
CD
O
N
LO
N
�
to
to
it,
U
N
O
N
N
O
21
Lo
O
Ln
O
Lo
CDLn
CDLU.) CDLU.) CD
O
O O O O
N M
O
N
N (M (M Ln
(ul) Ile;ulem
(ul)
ao;empunoaE)
o; 4;daa
Z ..-.
Q
W
Z �
m
C7
to
w

N
O
N
N
O
I�
N
N
N
N
N
N
_
N
CD
N
N
CDN
\
N
CD
N
CD
N
pp
N
N
00
N
m
CD
CDO
N=
Im
1 00
O
NLn
N
DN
CD
r
3 N
=
\O R
OM
O
Cl)0
W
O
F
00
CD
CN
as
N
Z
�
�
U
�
O
a
C
CD
4-0N
CD
O
Q
CN
Oir
Uto
•�
r
_
Q
C
0
N
N
CD
O
r
N
LO
:�.
N
50)
N
NN�
F�
to
to
U
N
CDN
N
CD
Lo
CDLn
O
Lo
CD
Lo CDLn O Ln CDO
O
O
O O O O
N M
O
N
N (M (M Ln
(ul) Ile;ulem
(ul)
ao;empunoaE)
o; 4;daa
Z
O �
Q
W �
C7
Z \
m
C7
o _
0 00 �
W fY1 N
O
\
� 00 N
W
O "' N
�
U O
� Q �
O °C
� m
� U
0 0 �
N N �
N �
c�a
o 0
� � �
c c U c c
O N
i�
w

N
O
N
O
N
�
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
N
N
N
\
_
N
O
N
O
N
00
N
N
0
N
O
Q
N
O
N
_
L
00
1
4-1
L
li/ c`
V
N
co
NO y
O
N
3 O
=
Q
N ++
f0
OM
0
m
� V
O
LU
L
'00 T
�
IV
CD
N
L
O
N
O
U
.40
O
O
NO
N
O
C
O
N
N
C
OIr
U
•�
a
r
N
C
O
ON
O
N
:.
N
N
U
N
O
N
N
O
O
O O O O
N
O
O
N M
O
Ln
O Ln
O
Ln
O
Ln
O Ln O Lo O
Ln
(ul) Ile;ulem
(ul)
ao;empunoaE)
o;
4;daa
LD
c-I
c-I
m Q �
w �
� � n
N
Z �
� � m
C7
>N
o�
�
N
� � N
U N
\
W �
Z w �
O
Q O
� m
LD U
c
O C
N O
N �
U � �
� c �
ap 3 c
cn ai � ° 3
C7 0
c c U c U
O N
UL � � m W
I I I
w

N
O
N
O
N
N
N
�
N
N
�
NLU
N
_
CD
N
N
CDN
N
\
N
_
N
CD
N
CD00
N
N
N
0
N
CDO
N
CD_
N
4-1C14L
NN�
= CD
O�
N
CD
3 N
LO CZ)
O
C)
�
r
4-0VL
LrLrL
rLU
LO
r
lie
00
NO
�i
NO
N
L
N
ZLn
U
to
o
O
a000
CDO
O
Oir
Uto
•�
cu
r
a
N
ON
C
O
CD
N
LO
�
N
U
N
CZ)
N
CZ)
CD O O O
N
O
O
N (M -4
CDLn
CDLn
CDLn
CDLn
CDLn
CDLn CD
N
N
(M
(M Ln
(ul) Ile;ulem
(ul) ao;empunoaE)
o;
4;daa
LD
c-I
c-I Q
N In �
C7
�
v m
a-+ Q
C7
>N
0 0
�
�
N
� �
N
U V1 \
W
Z W �
O O
Q
Q W
� m
� U
c
O C
N O
N O
� c �
� .3 c
cn a�'i � ° 3
-o L Q C7 0
c c U c U
O N
UL � m W
'
I I
w

N
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
CD
_
N
N
CD
N
N
\
N
CD
CDN
N
00
N
00
N
m
m
_
0
CD
N
N
4-100
N�
N
L
BCD
_�
o
N
3 CD
Cl)
M
L
r O
ULL
O
r_
60
N
N
O
ON
L
N
r ,
Z
Ln
U
to
O
Q
NO
4-1N
CD
O
N
L
L
N
C
ir
Ucu
r
a
CD
cu
N
CDC
O
N
N
�
N
V
CZ)
N
CZ)
O O O O
�.
N
N (M -4
O
Ln
CZ)Ln
O
V)
O
Ln CDLn CDLn CD
N
N (M (M Ln
(ui) Ile;uiem
(ui)
aa;empunoaE)
o;
y;daa
Z
Q
W �
C7
Z �
m
C7
W N
� V O
� � Q1
N N
W
to �
� W N
�
U O
� Q �
G � �
m
� U
c �
N � ci
N
� N �
� C
N
N
0 N
UL
� m W n
w

w
0
U
♦ '
0
'
N
'
IL JW
O
I�
11
O
,
N
o
I
M
�
\p
� O
♦
♦
o
1
No
O
`, `
N
U
rl
,
``
`
``
"
`
`%
O
W
O
(}•�
`
N
`
``
N
U
O
z
�
�
(-ui) uoiIejjdi:)3jd KjjuoW

c
cl
cl
O
w y U
�
N
--
Oo
�
O
n
to
O
N
0 U
O
U
O
cl
U
�
�l4clljCl
o
_ U
U
O O
w �
U
•O.
to
�
O
t
�
0
•�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
+'
s� � ��
�
0
U
p
Orl-
N
m
0o0
0o0
"C
+�
4
N O
U
n
N
U N O
cd
0
O
cl
U
Cl
cn
s.
CC Cd
rto
00
M
O
\O
M
00
00
ll-
—
0\
-- V
U
0
0
O
00
l�
01
l�
�n
�n
\O
N
--
\O
M
Oo
M
Oo
01
N
01
�
l�
�
�.
p
to
_O
"C
`3 Cd
V
vUi _U
U
to cl
cn
i.
O
y�ct �u
✓
V')
M
Oc
Oc
�
N
+
E
C,
O /-' rU+
,~
d\
o0
0o
00
N
DD
N
0 n +
�
O
O
N
N
s�
U
n
O
O Cd =0
O
U
O
cn
"
cn
p eC O
O
p yO
cd
bq
y
y
U
M
V')
\O
00
00
00
\O
--
0\
cn O 0 3
N
•�
v�
l�
\O
00
M
M
N
\O
v�
p O
N
N
N
00
00
�--�
N
Vn
"� U �"
O
U
Cj F.
CH ,Si �".
z
cl
,S'
cn U
O
�
V
U
O
U
O
Cj
clU\
Cj
O
Cj
O
+�
'+�
'+�
cn
n
Z
bq O
bq
Cd
V
O
O
O
+,
V
O
O
+,
+,
�
O cn
E•
O
v'
p
C
y.
n
U
� cd
Cd
-d
O O
O U � �-"
� s•.
U
O
s..
s..
s..
s..
s..
s..
s..
s..
�
cl
CID
to
vU vU
+U
`3
�z N
xz�"70
CAI"
N
O
N
il

1-0 00
00
00
00 \O
00 --i
N p1
CO
CfJ
eq
L
eq
rq N
N O
N
N O
N
N O
N
N O
N
N O
N
N O
N
O
Ncn
ci
U
C0
fq
N
00
O
O
N
M
N
10 00
cl� O
00
C
� o
cd
cd
cd
�n c
O\
cd
cd
cd
p
U
�
C L
O O
py
U
U Pr
O
O c
N
00
N O\\\
N N
C
eq
CO
C0
M
v� 'C a1
M
a1 M
l
rA
U)
cj
[- N
00 [-cn
N
O
O
,-, O
U y
CC
m
�
En
..
ej
6
cn
Cc
\O
O N
o
\
O
oc o
O o
00 o
O o
ci
CC
O
0�0
N
ad
v
v
W
Z
y"
N
N
Z
it
M
�
V'1
\O
l�
00
01
O
O
� En
H
o
aj
H
oc
It
110
oz
H
U
ti
U�
Q
0
F-
O
N
0
N
P4
0
t7
O
O
x
w

UT to Town Creek - Wetland Photos
UTTC AWI - (9/30/2021)
UTTC AW2 - (9/30/2021)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO.94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT

UTTC AW3 - (9/30/2021)
UTTC AW4 - (9/30/2021)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO.94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT

UTTC AW5 - (9/30/2021)
UTTC AW6 - (9/30/2021)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO.94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT

UTTC AW7 - (9/30/2021)
UTTC AW8 - (9/30/2021)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO.94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT

UTTC AW9 - (9/30/2021)
UTTC AW10 - (9/30/2021)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - OPTION A (DMS PROJECT NO.94648)
YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT

Appendix F
IRT Meeting Minutes

INTERNATIONAL
Meeting Minutes
UT to TOWN RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS Project ID. 94648
INC DEQ Contract# 003277
USACE Action ID: 2008-02655
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Date Prepared:
June 13, 2019
Meeting Date, Time,
June 11, 2019, 2:00 PM
Location:
On -site (Stanly County, NC)
USACE — Todd Tugwell, Steve Kichefski
DWR— Mac Haupt
Attendees:
DMS — Matthew Reid, Paul Wiesner
Baker— Drew Powers, Katie McKeithan, Scott King
Subject:
Credit release site walkover with IRT
Recorded By:
Drew Powers, Katie McKeithan, Scott King
An on -site meeting was held on June 11t", 2019 at 2:00 PM to discuss UT to Town Restoration Project
(Full Delivery) in Stanly County, NC. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Discuss credits to be released and to get ready for project closeout; and
2. Identify and discuss potential concerns/issues based on field observations.
General recent weather conditions have been hot and dry for several weeks in the area apart from a few
recent afternoon showers.
The group met at the entrance of the path leading to the site off Old Salisbury Road (in the middle of the
project) in Albemarle, NC. A general site overview and map orientation was provided and discussed.
Reach 4
The group then started walking into the site towards the top of Reach 4 to discuss the intermittent flow
and overall condition of the wetland BMP. Upon assessing Reach 4 it was noted that there was minimum
vegetation growing in the stream bed and sediment is being flushed out of the system. Mac, Todd, and
Steve discussed with Scott that it will be helpful to install either a flow gauge or flow camera to help
document the flow of Reach 4 and 5, about % of the way up each reach.
We then walked up the reach to look at the BMP. It was commented that the concrete level spreaders
are no longer the preferred method for BMP outlets, but that it appears to be functioning well. There
was a significant amount of clear, standing water present within the deep pool section of the BMP. No
gullies or rills were observed flowing into the BMP, and established vegetation is present all around the
BMP. Upon observation in this low-water condition the group did not feel the functioning of the BMP
was threatened by excess sedimentation and no maintence was suggested. The group did express some

concern that the BMP was fairly deep, and that it may be reducing the amount of water flowing into its
downstream system.
We then walked downstream to the confluence of Reaches 4 and 5 to look at the flow gauge and it the
stream condition. There was no water present in the stream, but staining on the PVC pipe and
streambed along with a general lack of streambed vegetation implies that water is routinely in the
channel.
Reach 6
The group congregated at the pipe crossing where Travis Wilson (WRC) had a concern with the
installation of the pipe. In the as -built plans it was noted that the pipe was installed on top of bedrock;
and therefore the pipe is perched above the downstream water surface. DMS, USACE, and DWR all
agreed that there is not much that we can do about the situation now and that resetting the pipe would
not be needed. It was also commented that for future sites that a bottomless pipe could be a good
option, though the general consensus was that in this specific case it does not appear that would have
helped as the native bedrock in this section appears to be naturally perched in this location. The group
continued down the reach to the confluence of Reach 6 and 3.
Reach 3
When looking at Reach 3 it was commented that the vegetation looked good, especially for the slate
belt region. It was apparent that many of the trees were growing with good height for a 4-year project
and the smaller trees were ones that were supplemental planted in 2018. A bare area located on the
left bank at the bottom of Reach 3 was noted in the MY3 report shown as a vegetation problem area
(VPA). We commented that we have reseeded and replanted it and will continue to monitor this area.
Mac took a soil sample on the left flood plain in a wetland area upstream of the confluence with Reach 6
and down to —6 inches did not see the expected hydric soils. He commented that we will need to revisit
the site and do a thorough inspection of our wetland boundaries prior to closeout, adjusting the exact,
final boundaries to our field assessments. Mac pointed out that final boundaries may have shifted some
and pointed out areas that looked wetter near where he took his soil boring. Todd then inspected
nearby Well 5 and saw no issues with the installation of the well and measured 11 inches to water
surface in the well. Mac did another soil sample near the well and saw very hydric soils throughout the
sample. Paul stated that the well success criteria is 9% and all wells for this site have met that criteria for
all monitoring years. We then walked upstream to the double culverts located at the break of Reach 2
and 3 where Todd and Mac commented that they did not like how wide the downstream section of
channel was constructed and asked this be avoided in the future. However, we showed that both the
construction and as -built plans indicated it was built as designed and the stream was stable. It was
noted that this section of channel is all bedrock.
Paul Wiesner pointed out that problem areas of invasive species (privet and parrot feather) were noted
in the MY3 report, primarily along sections of the main channel. We replied that two treatment efforts
have been made so far this year starting in March 2019 to address all invasive species throughout the
site, and we plan to continue to monitor and treat these species for the life of the project.
Reach 7
The group then headed to Reach 7 to inspect the intermittent channel and wetland BMP. Towards the
middle of the reach water was flowing in the channel with good vegetation establishing along the banks

and within the buffer. We then walked to the top of the reach to the BMP. Harry had commented on
the MY3 report that he had observed turbid water and potential sedimentation following a rain event
during his winter inspection, and asked how Michael Baker planned to monitor the BMP for any
potential maintenance needs. The group inspected the BMP under the current, low water -level
conditions and noted that the there is only a small amount of sediment (roughly 6" of a primarily
silt/clay material) captured in the deeper pool portion of the BMP. The standing water that was present
at the bottom of the pool was quite turbid. However, after observation in this low-water condition the
group did not feel the functioning of the BMP was threatened by excess sedimentation and no
maintence was suggested at this time. No gullies or rills were observed flowing into the BMP, and
established vegetation is present all around the BMP. Scott explained that both of the project BMPs
were designed to a depth in anticipation of some sedimentation for the period after construction before
vegetation could establish when some amount of erosion can usually be expected. Scott also
mentioned that we will keep an eye on the sedimentation/fill and confirm that ample storage room is
maintained within both of the project BMP's. We can do that through visual inspections in the dry
season when remaining storage capacity can be directly observed. The group also expressed some
concern that the BMP may be reducing the amount of water flowing into its downstream system,
though given the flowing water observed in the channel downstream this was not as much of a concern
here.
Paul brought up that it was noted on the MY3 report that a tree or two was down on Reach 1 and we
confirmed that they have been cleaned up and that all fencing is in good condition.
This concluded the walkover and below are a few notes that were discussed back at the vehicles before
departure.
- Credit release: Todd and Mac agreed to all credits being released for MY3
- A gauge or flow camera should be installed on Reach 4 and 5 (about % of the way up)
- The wetland boundaries need to be re-evaluated to represent the actual boundaries in the
field, particularly with regard to hydric soil formation
- The pipe crossing on Reach 6 is sufficient
- A photo point of each project culvert location will be added to the monitoring report
This represents Michael Baker Engineering's best interpretation of the meeting discussions. If anyone
should find any information contained in these meeting notes to be in error and/or incomplete based on
individual comments or conversations, please notify me with corrections/additions as soon as possible.
Most sincerely,
Andrew Powers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

INTERNATIONAL
Meeting Minutes
UT to Town Creek Restoration Project
DMS Project ID. 94648
NC DEQ Contract# 003277
USACE Action I D: SAW-2013-01280
DW R# 20141024
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105-060040
Meeting Date, Time,
June 3, 2021, 9:00AM
Location:
On -site (Stanly County, NC)
USACE— Todd Tugwell, Casey Haywood
DEQ— Erin Davis
Attendees:
DMS— Melonie Allen, Paul Wiesner, HarryTsomides
Baker— Katie McKeithan, Drew Powers, Scott King
Subject:
Closeout site walkover with IRT
Recorded By:
Scott King and Katie McKeithan
An on -site meeting was held on June 3, 2021 at 9:00 AM to review the UT to Town Creeksite for
closeout of stream credits and earlycloseout for wetland credits. Recent weather conditions have been
hot and dry throughout the spring and summer in this area. For your convenience, pleasefind included
here figures from the most recent CCPV from MY5 along with the wetlands map from the wetland
adjustment report.
The group met at the crossing between Reaches 2 and 3 and began by walking down Reach 3, inspecting
both the stream and the adjusted wetland area proposed in the MY5 monitoring report. The wetlands
added to the credited area (all as Creation) in the report were closely evaluated by the IRT. The areas
added adjacent to the existing Restoration areas (upstream of XS-11 roughly) were well received by the
group. Those added below this point and adjacent to the existing Creation areas were considered more
questionable. The existing Creation area located closer to the channel is noticeably wetter with some
standing water observed and more herbaceous wetland species present. Tree vigor is clearly lower in
this area, though there is no height requirement with this project. Plant densitywas also noticeably
lower here than other portions of the project but is still well above the MY5 performance standard of
260 stems/acre (based on all veg plot data and transects conducted by Baker). Hydric soil was found
within both the original and newly added Creation areas, though Todd correctly noted that this was an
area where a floodplain was cut so the hydric soils may not be indicative of a high water table (this is
why this area was originally classified as Creation and not Restoration). Todd investigated a couple of
riffle sections in Reach 3 and noted good channel bed features in both but found a pocket of parrot
feather in one. Baker has treated this twice a year for several years and have reduced the parrot feather

present to a remarkable degree. Harrynoted that the system had been choked with it before we began
treatment.
We then began walking up Reach 6 for a relatively short distance before turning back after a brief
inspection that met to everyone's satisfaction. The groupthen hiked outside the easement up to Reach
7, hopped the fence to inspect the middle of Reach 7 (which was flowing and quickly deemed to be
acceptable) then moved downstream to its confluence with Reach 2. We then walked downstream back
to the vehicles at the crossing, moving between the left and right floodplains. The stream was noted to
be in good condition and accepted by the group. Some of the wetlands along the left floodplain had
visual similarities tothose at the lower section of Reach 3, though Scott emphatically noted that this
area appears much wetterthroughout the winter and into spring, with significant standing water
present for extended periods. The trees are notably shorter here than in other areas (again, no height
requirement on this project) but their density is good. Herbaceous vegetation is present here but not as
thick as most of the rest of the site. Other wetland areas along the right floodplain looked very good to
the group, though notably they are usually so wet as to be nearly impassable with deep muddy
conditions. The very dry spring clearly resulted in all wetland areas visuallyappearing much different
than is normal. Scott noted that this project is located within the Slate Belt, which under normal
conditions will dry up quickly during the spring and summer. Thus, many of the wetlands did not
'present themselves' visually as well as they do normally. However, the combined acreage of the
questioned wetland areas makeup only a small portion of the overall wetlands and a very small portion
of the project as a whole. All of the groundwater wells met their performance standards, with
hydrology percentages averaging 30-50%for the past three years (for MY5 virtually 100%!), far
exceeding the set success criteria of 12%.
The group then stopped near the crossing to discuss the project evaluation and IRTconclusions and then
left to meet at the Town Creek project located close by.
Summary Points:
• The remaining Stream Credits are approved for closeout by the I RT, though DMS will still
withhold 10% of the total stream credits until final project closeout. All stream monitoring may
cease, though any subsequent damagetothe systemthat occurs until complete project closeout
must be repaired.
The remaining Wetland Credits are not releasedfor early closeout and should be monitored for
the remaining two years (MY6 and MY7). If the Creation wetlands of concern (those areas
added adjacent to the original Creation areas roughly below XS-11) are used for credit in the
final revised wetland adjustment, then the IRTwill require the installation of a groundwater well
to demonstrate hydrology. However, Baker intends to remove all of those questionable
Creation areas (cited above) that had been added in the wetland adjustment report to facilitate
a smoother closeout. Baker will submit a final, revised wetland credited area adjustment report
with the MY6 monitoring report for I RT review.
• The MY6 report will also include a revised calculation of additional stream credits for wider
buffers using the same January2018 methodology that was previously used to determine the
credits (the previous calculation has been subsequently affected by the modification of credited
wetland boundaries).

• Treatment of invasive species, part icularlyparrot feather, will continue until complete project
closeout.
• While MY6 monitoring typically focuses on a more visual inspection (with the reduced
monitoring requirements found in MY4and MY6) Bakerwill still monitor all wetlands in full and
will run vegetation transects within all newly added wetland credit areas.
• Vegetation data collected for MY7 can focus on the veg plots located within and adjacent to the
wetland areas.
• This represents Baker's best interpretation of the meeting discussions. If anyone should find any
information contained in these meeting notes to be in error and/or incomplete based on
individual comments or conversations, please notify me with corrections/additions as soon as
possible.
Most sincerely,
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Scott. King@ mba kerintl.com
919-219-6339

Appendix G
Wetland Boundary
Adjustment

INTERNATIONAL
Memorandum
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: December 16, 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 (0.047 ac) 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 IRT walkover 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 I RT 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 removedfrom 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
2.560
1:1
2.560
Riparian, Creation
1.560
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
This minor adjustment of the credited wetland boundaries also affected the results of the buffer
spreadsheet tool used in the mitigation plan to determine additional stream credits from the
implementation of wider riparian buffers. As per I RT request, the same 2018 version of the buffer tool
originally used for the mitigation plan was used again to re-evaluate the stream credit calculation, only
using the new wetland boundaries. As shown below in Table 2, the analysis revealed that the addition
of the Creation area results in the loss of 2.68 stream credits as compared to the original analysis (from
265.32 to 262.64 credits).

Tablet. Adjusted Stream Credits from Buffer Tool
Original Stream Credits:
Additional Credits from Buffer Tool*
265.320
Revised Stream Credits:
Adjusted Credits from Buffer Tool (using revised wetla nd
boundaries)
262.640
Difference in Credits
2.680
*These additional stream credits were rounded down to 265.000 when presented
in the Credit Table 1 for the mitigation plan.
A printout of the buffer tool summary page is included with this memo, and the spreadsheet tool and
GIS shapefiles used are included as part of the e-submission files for the project MY6 report. As per
DMS request, the Corps was consulted on 12/9/21 about this loss of stream credits to see if they felt it
would impact the final project closeout numbers. Given the small credits involved and the fairly
complicated nature of any of the proposed remedies (further altering the wetland boundaries to avoid
certain buffer widths and/or using the new buffer tool) the Corps responded that our current approach
was acceptable and that the slight reduction in stream credits from the buffer tool would not result in
reduced closeout stream credits. Thus, the project can closeout as proposed. See attached email
exchange for more details of this discussion.
Its hould also be noted that there are anadditiona1 —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 certainly experienced improved hydrology along with the adjacent restored
wetlands.
Most sincerely,
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Scott. King@ mba kerintl.com
919-219-6339 [M]

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

Conservation Easement
Soil Borings
~y o Hydric
o Marginal
10 Reach 2 0 Upland
Vegetation Plots
MW 8 0 0 Groundwater Monitoring Wells
0
Restoration Area 0 Creation Area ® Flow Pressure Transducers
Removed (0.047 ac) 0 Added 0.192 ac
( ) — Cross Section -Pool
XS-9 O
Cross Section - Riffle
O O XS-10
MW 4 0 0Stream Top of Bank
CO
�d 0 11 ,L Project Stream Centerlines
Reach 6 CO 00 ® Restoration Area Removed
0 0 /
0 0 0 Revised Creation Area Added
00 0
0 0 ® Previously Submitted Creation Area
00 0 Revised Wetland Boundaries
O Restoration
0 0 XS-11 C Creation
0 C Jurisdictional
0 0
- 12
13ANK
06�
,•. MW 5
0" 0 0 2 0
4 .O
Reach 3 0 CP
0
XS-13
- S-14 O
O
0 MW 10
' O s 0 r.
O r
Olt,'
I. O
_ i O O
Fx 0
MW6 �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:16Dec2021

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

)
|
;
.
.
;
§\�..� ;_ !§§&/J)))))
J||�{| { ::ESfEEEEE-
!!,&!! ; !§§!f§]]]]]/
\ !
M.

c
'� �
m
O)
� y
a-
o ao
a ao
N ID
m ti
O m
N m
rci a
m m
ti N
a O�
m N
m o
rl N
N N
�
a m
lri vi
m ID
N N
N N-
iD iD
� ao
m
ID
m ID
rl ti
N
n m
m y
m 1�
O
N N
m
�n
n
lD
ao m
m m
.� w
N m
iD a
1� W
w m
N
o iD
1� N
in o
m 00
ao
00
y
.-I D
L
N�
O m
m�
m
W m m
m
.� ID lD
1� O
o m
m N
N m
N
ID
rl ri
N rl
m In
a lD
t!1 u/
V O
ma N
ti
o$
ti
w
O m
m m
N 00
ID
a a
n
m
.3.
� m
W
m m
m m
m mW
o
�n .�
c
w
n
n n
n n
n n
n
ti
n
m
n
n
a
—
m `K
¢
a m
N m
ci 00
00
ID V
m m
.� m
0000 ID
^�
ID 10
a h
W
ti ti
ID
a
—
lN'1 O
N
rl w
r N
m m
O t
r O
1� ti
m t
N D
m V
lNl/ W
a l�
000
0 u/
l^!1
m
V w
ID
lD Vl
n n
n 0
m
N
r, V1
ON1 't
't
v/ N
'tID
m
W
W -;tu�i
ID
v`ni
y
°lD
lD lD
lD lD
lD lD
LD.�°
m m
m m
ID
C
N
O
V1 O
V1 O
V/ O
Ol
3
`� Vl
V ci
O Vl
N N
O V/
m m
O V1
A
O ry
N
n
m
n
n n
n n
n n
n
n
g
wo^o0
^Mmm
m
m
M
m
`o
O
C
N
L
10
O`
O.
O.
¢
K
K
K w
w K
K
m
10
O
LL
ON1
W
O
V C �
Om1
m
m
Q
L
10
Gl
C
rl
N
M �
�fl lD
I�
ID �
L N
N
ID 0 M 0
It m �
O NkD
N
Z6

QConservation Easement Boundary
0 Stream Channel
0 Constructed BMP for Credit
Credited Wetland Boundaries (revised)
0 Restoration
Creation
DMS Project No. 94648
Figure 1. Stream Channel, Credited Wetlands, BMPs Baker Project N. 120857
- 0 126 260 Soo n Buffer Analysis (Rev 08Dec2021) D�e:080 c2021
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet N UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A M.nit. BYgYe.r 6 K7
Stanly County, NC
Sheet: 1 of 1

Figure 2. Actual Buffer Zones with Applicable DMS Project W. 94648
N Credited Areas Removed Baker Project No. 120867
- 0 125 250 500 Date: UNc2021
Feet Buffer Analysis (Rev 08Dec2021) Monitoring Yea Adz
I N T E R N A T I O N A L UT to Town Creek Restoration Project - Option A Drawn By: RWMISEK
Stanly County, NC Sheet:1 cfl

King, Scott
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) < [e-mail] >
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 02:14 PM
To: King, Scott
Cc: Davis, Erin B; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Wiesner, Paul; Tsomides, Harry
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: UT to Town Creek project questions
Attachments: UTtoTownCreek_Wetland BoundaryAdjustments_Fig2_rev_2021Dec08.pdf
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 <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2021 11:54 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
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! 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 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 [O] 828-412-6102 1 [M] 919-219-6339 [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> I www.mbakerintl.com<Blockedhttp://www.mbakerintl.com/>
4