FW: [External] Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-00051/ Montgomery County

Baker, Caroline D
From: Davis, Erin B
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 4:49 PM
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation
Site/ SAW-2020-00051/ Montgomery County
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20200016 v.1
Doc Date: 10/21/22
Doc Type: Mitigation —Mitigation Evaluation
Doc Name: General topic of email title
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 1:59 PM
To: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>
Cc: Harmon, Beth <[e-mail]>; Stanfill, Jim <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie
<[e-mail]>; Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>;
Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CEMVP (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Fennel, Tommy E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Tommy.E.Fennel @usace.army.mil>
Subject: [External] Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-00051/
Montgomery County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Kelly,
The 15-Day As-Built/MYO review for the Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site (SAW-2020-00051) ended September 23,
2022. This review was done in accordance with Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. All comments received
from the NCIRT are incorporated in the email below. Please address IRT concerns in the MY1 Report. There were no
objections to issuing the initial (30% ) credit release of 2,773.055 warm SMUs and 1.460 riparian WMUs. Please find
attached the current signed ledger. The IRT is not requesting a site visit at this time.
Casey Haywood, USACE:
1. Several adjustments were made during construction to save trees. Please note visual observations of tree
survival in these areas in future monitoring reports; the IRT is interested in tree survival on mitigation sites following
construction.
Vegetation plot data indicates the site is on a trajectory for success. When was the site planted? Table 10 shows
it was planted in March 2022 but does not specify the day.
3. Concur with DWR's comment 3. In addition, please make sure to capture the wetland rehabilitation areas with a
random veg plot in future monitoring reports.
Todd Bowers, USEPA:

1. There is a lack of, or at least I expected, a comprehensive summary of the work performed in the opening
paragraphs that outlines the length of streams and acres of wetlands restored/enhanced/preserved and any additional
features (monitoring devices etc.) of the site that were implemented.
2. The 19.57 acres of mechanically treated Chinese privet will receive a follow up chemical treatment in MY1.
Noted
3. One random veg plot has a dominant species (Eastern cottonwood) but this is a random plot so there is no
expectation that this result will be repeated. Noted.
4. The photo of the culverts from the stream perspective are great but I would like to see some additional photos
of the crossing from the at -grade perspective to illustrate the crossing width.
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. As per the 2016 NCIRT guidance, please provide soil boring descriptions near all groundwater monitoring gauges.
2. CCPV —The groundwater gauges in the two larger wetland reestablishment areas appear to have shifted a bit more
interior. DWR has mentioned in the past that the sections of wetland credit areas we are most concerned with meeting
the minimum hydroperiod threshold are near the credit boundary, close to the upland transition and close to the
stream. If during monitoring, vegetation establishment and soils aren't consistent across a wetland credit area, DWR
may request another gauge be installed for better representation.
3. CCPV — Most of the permanent veg plots are close to the stream, which is helpful to capture any priority 2 cuts that
we're concerned about. However, there's limited representation of the outer buffer near the easement boundary by
permanent veg plots. Please use a few of the random plots each year to cover this zone, as well as, paying specific
attention during the visual assessment.
4. Sheet 1.3.8 — Is the additional riprap shown lining the pool downstream of the culvert or did it replace the pool as
more of a riffle?
5. Sheet 1.4.1— Of all the added riprap reinforcement areas, the only one that appears to extend along the stream credit
area is the top of UT1B. Does maintenance of this riprap area need to be added as an allowable activity by Stewardship?
With the culvert ending on the easement boundary, what is the likelihood that future crossing
maintenance/replacement may impact the easement area?
6. Many of the construction changes are tied to attempts to save trees. Does the project engineer work with the project
ecologist on these decisions? Is tree health assessed? Are construction shifts away from trees far enough not to impact
critical root zones?
7. Photo Point 34, UT3 R2 — Were there any field indicators that the right bank shown in the photo is actively eroding?
8. DWR appreciated the planted species diversity.
Please reach out with any questions.
Regards,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107