20181275 Ver 1_Notice of Initial Credit Release

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home
tab.

Paul,

The 15-Day IRT As-Built/MY0 review for the NCDMS UT to Magness Creek Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-01759) ended July 21, 2023. Per Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review
followed the streamlined review process. All comments received from the NCIRT are incorporated in the email below. There were no objections to issuing the initial 30% credit release
of 1,017.385 warm stream mitigation units and 0.565 wetland mitigation units. Please find attached the current signed ledger. The IRT is not requesting a site visit at this time.

Maria Polizzi, DWR

1. The planting density of sycamore appears high in Veg. Plot 6 at 43%. The planting plan shows 15% for this species. Be sure to maintain proper spacing when planting to avoid areas
with a high density of one species.
2. I like the callouts for species density on your CCPV.
3. Thanks for including so many photos. These are very helpful.

Dave McHenry, WRC

1. Aside from being impressed by the cool rail car bridge crossing, the only thing that caught my attention was maybe a split channel at 18+50, though it’s not real clear from photo
if that is truly the case. They note they had bedrock issues in this general location and had to reroute things a bit.

Erin Davis, USACE

1. Photo Point 10 – A vegetated mid channel bar is shown. This appears to the approximate location where bedrock was encountered, and the channel was widened. Please include a condition
update and additional photos in the MY1 report, including whether proposed hand repairs were completed.
2. Photo point 19 – The BMP outlet appears heavily armored. In future designs please consider embedding the stone more to reduce the risk of riprap trapping crossing wildlife.
3. Figure 3 CCPV – Several monitoring stations were relocated from the approved mitigation plan monitoring figure 11 locations. While it is anticipated that some gauges and veg plots
may be slightly shifted (a few feet) in the field, we expect the general locations of monitoring stations to align with the mitigation plan figure that was reviewed, commented on, and
approved by the IRT. Justifications need to be provided for any major monitoring station changes (e.g., bedrock encountered, change in planted area).

a. Planted wetland reestablishment credit areas must demonstrate that they meet the vegetation performance standard; please relocate veg plot 3 completely within wetland reestablishment
credit area as shown on the approved mitigation plan monitoring figure 11.
b. USACE made a mitigation plan comment (#3) requesting a temporary veg transect in the berm/spoil removal area along Reach 1A near XS 1. As stated in Baker’s response, please include
this data in the MY1 report.
c. DWR made a mitigation plan comment (#6) requesting shifts in the groundwater well locations in the southeast reestablishment wetland. The upper well was relocated closer to the credit
area boundary as per USACE and DWR request. But the lower well (MCW4) was installed a distance from the stream and overlapping a rehabilitation area rather than closer to the stream
channel as per DWR request. Please explain why the DWR request was not met.
d. Why were groundwater wells in the northwest reestablishment wetland shifted from their originally proposed locations, MCW1 to the south and MCW2 to the north?

Please reach out with any questions.

Regards,

Erin

Erin B. Davis

Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District

[phone] work cell

a. Planted wetland reestablishment credit areas must demonstrate that they meet the vegetation
performance standard; please relocate veg plot 3 completely within wetland reestablishment credit area
as shown on the approved mitigation plan monitoring figure 11.
b. USACE made a mitigation plan comment (#3) requesting a temporary veg transect in the berm/spoil
removal area along Reach 1A near XS 1. As stated in Baker’s response, please include this data in the
MY1 report.
c. DWR made a mitigation plan comment (#6) requesting shifts in the groundwater well locations in the
southeast reestablishment wetland. The upper well was relocated closer to the credit area boundary as
per USACE and DWR request. But the lower well (MCW4) was installed a distance from the stream and
overlapping a rehabilitation area rather than closer to the stream channel as per DWR request. Please
explain why the DWR request was not met.
d. Why were groundwater wells in the northwest reestablishment wetland shifted from their originally
proposed locations, MCW1 to the south and MCW2 to the north?

Please reach out with any questions.

Regards,
Erin

Erin B. Davis
Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
[phone] work cell
2