Notice of Initial Credit Release_ NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site_ SAW-2020-00051_ Montgomery County

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker. Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-00051/
Montgomery County
Date: Monday, December 12, 2022 2:58:02 PM
Attachments: IRT Comment Response Cross Creek Ranch.odf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DW R#: 20200016 v.1
Doc Date: 11/8/22
Doc Type: Mitigation — Mitigation Information
Doc Name: General topic of email title
From: Jason Lorch <jlorch@wild landseng.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 3:59 PM
To: Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Harmon, Beth <[e-mail]>; Stanfill, Jim <[e-mail]>; Allen,
Melonie <[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]; Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>; Fennel, Tommy E CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: 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.
All, see the attached letter that addresses the IRT's comments on the Cross Creek MYO Report. A
copy of this letter will be in the Monitoring Year 1 Report as well. Let me know if there are any
questions or concerns. Thanks!
Jason Lorch, GISP I Senior Environmental Scientist
0: 919.851.9986 x107 M: 919.413.1214
Wildlands Engineering. Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.BrowningCo�usace.army.mil>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 1:59 PM

To: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>
Cc: Harmon, Beth <Beth.Harmon (o)ncdenr.gov>; Stanfill, Jim <iim.stanfiIIPncdenr.gov>; Melonie
Allen <melonie.allenPncdenr.gov>; Jason Lorch <ilorchPwildlandseng.com>; Wiesner, Paul
<paul.wiesner @ncdenr.gov>; Merritt, Katie <katie.merritt(@ncdenr.gov>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <Tyler.A.Crumbley2(@usace.army.mil>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell(@usace.army.mil>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CEMVP (USA)
<Case)I.M.Haywood(@usace.army.mil>; Davis, Erin B <erin.davis @ncdenr.gov>; Wilson, Travis W.
<travis.wilson(@ncwildlife.org>; Bowers, Todd <bowers.todd @epa.gov>; Matthews, Kathryn
(kathryn_matthewsna fws.gov) <kathryn_matthews(@fws.gov>; Fennel, Tommy E CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA)<Tomm)I.E.Fennel(@usace.army.mil>
Subject: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site/ SAW-2020-
00051/ Montgomery County
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.
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:
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.
The 19.57 acres of mechanically treated Chinese privet will receive a follow up chemical
treatment in MY1. Noted
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 UT113. 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