MY1 Credit Release_ WLS Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank

From: Davis. Erin B
To: Baker. Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] MY1 Credit Release/ WLS Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank/ SAW-2015-01816/ Mecklenburg County
Date: Monday, December 12, 2022 2:24:07 PM
Attachments: MY1 Credit Release Upper Rocky SAW-2015-01816.pdf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DW R#: 20160849 v.1
Doc Date: 11/30/22
Doc Type: Mitigation —Mitigation Evaluation
Doc Name: General topic of email title
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 2:15 PM
To: Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniel Ingram<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] MY1 Credit Release/ WLS Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank/ SAW-2015-01816/
Mecklenburg County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Ca ra,
Please see the attached credit release approval for: SAW-2015-01816 / Water & Land Solutions /
Upper Rocky UMBI / Upper Rocky Mitigation Site / Mecklenburg County. IRT comments are
incorporated in the email below. I would like to keep an eye on wetland data for the 7 of 15 gauges
that did not meet performance standards and reassess next year. No site visit is requested at this
time.
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
According to WLS MY1 activities occurred in October 2022 and the report presents the data for MY1.
The Project meets the MY1 success criteria for stream hydrology, stream horizontal and vertical
stability, streambed condition and stability, stream flow, and vegetation. Seven wetland gauges did
not meet 12 percent hydrology criteria (noted below), likely due to recently completed construction.
Based on these results, the Project is on a trajectory to meet interim success criteria in Monitoring
Year 2 (MY2).
* I appreciated the greenway photos to ensure encroachment is not becoming an issue.
* The cross section photos were great but I would like to see a similar treatment of the culvert
on R-2 giving a view perpendicular to the ones included.
* Bankfull flow achieved for R-3 and R-5; no bankfull events for R-1 and R-7. Noted.
* Wetland hydroperiod (>12% of the growing season; > 8-10% for MY1 and MY2) performance
criteria are not being met in areas of GW-8, 13 and 15 (Wetland 7). Noted.

* Potential wetland development in areas around GW-3 and 4 appears promising.
* Glad to see that invasive species, while present in limited amounts and not located in any
veg plots, are being identified and dealt with aggressively.
* I recommend to include the previous 12 months of monthly rainfall data in the associated
graph and chart.
* I concur with the IRT request (From June 8, 2022 site notes) that a veg plot should be
established in areas proposed for potential wetland credit. Response from WLS to monitor as early
as MY3 is sufficient at this time.
Casey Haywood; USACE:
1. Appreciate that comments from the June 10, 2022 IRT site visit were addressed in the report
to include pre -construction gauge data and the addition of a photo points along the greenway
and behind the neighborhood sign. Noted that the two stream problem areas will be
stabilized via live staking and re -matted in MY2. Please continue to monitor these areas and
provide photo documentation in future reports if the problem persists.
2. There is a significant amount of vegetation in the channel on R1 (XS-18 & XS-21) and R8 (XS-
17). Is the vegetation in the channel Murdannia? If so, it is strongly encouraged to treat early
in monitoring as we have had several other sites that have had difficulty managing and
eliminating this species.
3. It would be helpful to indicate failing groundwater gauges and/or veg plots on the CCPV for
ease of review in future reports (ie. 7 of 15 groundwater gauges failed but were marked as
green on the map).
Erin Davis. NCDWR:
1. DWR appreciated all of the photos. The signage along the greenway looks good.
2. Thank you for addressing your invasive species control in detail. Please stay diligent on kudzu
(recommend even coordinating to treat areas adjacent to the project easement if possible).
Also, cattail was not mentioned but was observed during the last IRT site visit. Please treat
cattail within any wetland credit areas.
3. Please watch the aggradation recorded at XS 9 & XS 10 along R3 upstream of the SPAS.
4. DWR reiterates Corps observation/concern with the in -channel aquatic vegetation shown in
photos across multiple reaches, particularly R1 and R8. Please try to identify the dominant
aquatic species and note in the MY2 report. We recommend being proactive early in
monitoring to treat aquatic invasives.
5. Please differentiate between wetland gauges that met or didn't meet on the CCPV. Wetland
gauges 8, 13 and 15 should be a different color.
Please include a copy of this correspondence in the monitoring year 2 report.
Thanks,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107