20030065 Ver 2_Modifications_20150504

Strickland, Bev
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Karen,
Patrick Smith <psmith @sandec.com>
Monday, May 04, 2015 4:32 PM
Higgins, Karen
Kevin Martin; Merritt, Katie
Buffer Restoration Plan Modification (DWQ #2003 -0065 — Wayne County)
BufferResto ratio nApproval _20130312.pdf, Rosewood Industrial Park Buffer
Restoration - Requested Modification 05- 04- 2015.pdf
I spoke with Katie Merritt a few days back to let her know that we've completed the buffer
restoration planting for the subject project. I also told her that there was an additional item
that we wanted to present to DWR regarding the site as described below and as shown on the
attached figure before we recorded the permanent easement.
We are requesting a slight modification to a previously approved Buffer Restoration Plan
boundary for the subject property. The buffer restoration plan was approved on March 12,
2013 (your approval letter attached). The proposed plan called for the restoration of a total of
2.45 acres of buffer restoration at the Rosewood Industrial Park in Goldsboro, NC. Restoration
was required to offset buffer impacts located on an adjacent property (immediately southeast
of the intersection of NC 70 and NC581).
The restoration was required as a condition of a February 13, 2008 401 Water Quality
Certification and Major Variance Approval by the EMC (DWQ #03- 0065). The permit
conditions (and EMC approval) required the restoration of 2.45 acres of buffer but did not
specifically call out minimum buffer width requirements. The approval did however allow for
restoration of buffers up to 100 feet in width.
Our client (Mr. David Weil - the permittee) is requesting to modify the restored buffer area
and protective easement as shown on the attached sketch map (Requested Modifications 05-
04- 2015). This modification still allows for the full 2.45 acres of buffer restoration however it
adjusts the buffer boundary slightly to allow for a reduction in the buffer width along
approximately 345 linear feet of channel from 50 feet to 30 feet (effectively removing Zone 2
from these sections). In order to offset this change we're proposing to restore Zone 1 of the
buffer along an additional 75 linear feet (approx.) of channel (and portions of Zone 2 along this
length) as well as adding additional buffer (from 50 to 100 feet) along approximately 185
linear feet of channel. See the attached map.

You'll also see a small section (previously approved by the EMC) of buffer area that we'd
request be removed since it sits directly over two pipes which serve to convey a one of the
two buffered streams on site. The language in the Deed Restriction would as we read it
prohibit us from making repairs to this pipe in the future (if needed) so it's our opinion that it
would be better to remove it from the easement altogether rather than risk complications
later on.
The end result of this change (relative to what was originally approved by the EMC) will be
that while some Zone 2 buffer will be removed from the buffer restoration, approximately
450 feet of additional stream will now have a Zone 1 vegetated and be permanently
protected. In the long run this still seem a net gain over that was originally approved. Also
considering the recently adopted Consolidated buffer rules which allow for 0.75: 1 ratio
within the same 12 digit HUC and buffers of 30 feet within urban areas we believe this is a
reasonable approach.
In preparation of this modification request in addition to planting the areas proposed in the
approved restoration plan we also planted the supplemental areas (approximately 0.25 acres)
requested in this change and shown on the attached map to avoid the need for the planting
contractor to return to the site should our request be approved.
We apologize for this request coming so late in the process, but this modification would
substantially reduce land use complications our recently discovered by our client while at the
same time provide for the restoration of Zone 1 buffers along stream segments which
currently lack woody vegetation (and are used for vehicle and materials storage).
Kevin and I are available to meet with you or get on a conference call if it's more convenient
for you. I believe Kevin will be downtown next week as part of his EMC commitments so if you
have any questions he may be able to stop by to discuss.
We appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Best,
Patrick
N

psmithOsandec.corn
Visit us at sandec.com
FlMs ellectrovflc COMMM'flCaUCKI, hlCIUd4T allll attachnnents, k 4aended only for the nanned addressee (s) and nnay contMn confidendall hffoninaflon, FlMs ellectrovflc
COMMM'flCaUCHI Maury VlOt have passed tht'OUgh OUt' standard rev eW/qUalfitY COVItt'011 �M'ocess, ll)eMp data and reconnnnendaflons hldlUded llher6n are prcMded as a nnatter of
convevflence and SlIOUld not Rasa Used for finall deMp, ((Reply only on finall, hardcopy nnatetialls IlDeamnivT the COVISUltaVA'S Oti&lall Mplaftffe and seall, If YOU are not the nanned
addressee (S), MlY Use, fflssennh'nflon, fflSttT3Ufl0Vl CK CO 3Yh'T Of tIMS COMMM'flCaUCHI k �3rollhfllbBted, If YOU have recen ved tIlMs ellectrovk COMMM'flCaUCHI Ben error, please noflfy
the sender by reftffn at nnafll and deplete the otigh'nll ccwnnnUVfl Cafl0Vl ftTWn YOUt' systenn, FlIaVIII(YOU,
MAPlease consider the environment before printing this emafl.