20072252 Ver 2_Staff Comments_20160426

Mitigation Plan Checklist for Riparian Buffer Restoration Mitigation Sites — created 7/15/13
Q DWR Stream Determination
N�- DWR Site Viability Letter
❑ Site Location
directions including Lat & Long
8 -digit HUC &/or 14 digit (if applicable)
�ounty
V EMC approved Soil map, Topo and Aerial Maps
0'/'_�U/Ib-watershed where applicable
", we Uku
Project Name
Reviewed By
'1'9('[(_g
Date
�xisting Site Conditions w/ photos . r\-Uj mom
Cn o' a9 PropQaQd UU ocld�'I c.ur v�►� a�zicF�Qd
v' Proposed restoration efforts w/ a planting plan, `"
Li -5 'H -y6:1- 7 lar -) kYj')Q cjck`� CYTS '�o r 1ag5A
)64 MI)
-wee adds` I c� m
V"Monitoring & Maintenance Plan wa*se Q_
mi -F t,_a d 0 on p kCA ho&hons `ice r1*t1a 9 p ��s AL2 f �
❑ Financial Assurance (if applicable) IIA
l
❑ Associated nutrient offset credit calcs, which shall include credit generation, service area, etc. qA
V Credit Determination Table/Map - +o Vac YQv� sed if,
i rub 0,� (d S Jr -)show � -UyC) V,)u e- uklltrls ark
Verification that the site does not have an impact on threatened or endangered specie_
verification that the site is not affected by on-site or nearby sources of contamination as provided 0 00'
,xa o �� r�
dd
by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.�`�
,G>/Verification that the site can be constructed in a FEMA floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area io
(SFHA)
Vverification that the site can be constructed on land if it is an archaeological site;
q/A list of all permits that will be required and obtained prior to constructing the mitigation site for
nutrient offset and/or buffer mitigation (e.g. Sediment and Erosion Control Plan from Division of
Land Resources, NCG010000 Stormwater Permit from NCDWQ, 404 permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification from NCDWQ).

Mt. Pleasant Creek Restoration Project; Bowman Property Stream and Buffer Mitigation Plan) DWR#
2007-2252v2 DWR staff Comments: Katie Merritt 4/26/16
Summary:
o Add that the mitigation plan was also written in conformance with the Temporary
Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective October 24, 2014
— October 31, 2015)
o site whether "urban" or "non -urban" (since it matters in regards to 0295)
Section 1.0:
o State that Buffer mitigation can be used to offset permitted impacts according to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 in the Randleman Lake Watershed
o Buffer mitigation generated from this site cannot be converted into Nutrient Offset
credits.
Section 5.0:
o Needs to be revised where widths >200' are being counted towards buffer mitigation
o will need to be revised if Rule .0295 (m)(2)(f) cannot be clearly demonstrated (see
below) in certain or all areas proposed.
o buffer widths should match the widths as specified in the rule under each ratio: 0-100';
101-200'.
o Indicate what a "BMU" is. If it is acres, please indicate "acres" on the table as well.
Section 6.0:
o It was stated onsite that the landowner may want to use the field West of the mitigation
site for cattle grazing in the future. Since this field can only be accessed through the
crossing that runs through the mitigation site, it was recommended that fencing be
installed along the entire crossing to remove the possibility of cattle gaining access to
the riparian areas. This area is shown in "gray" on the attached Figure 6.5 map. DWR
concurs with DMS' statement for Question #5 in the memorandum dated February 25,
2014 to Ms. Andrea Hughes regarding fencing at the ford crossing. However, this
fencing needs to be extended throughout the entire linear footage of the crossing.
Section 6.2: Areas C1, C2, C3 and D are being proposed as Riparian Buffer Alternative Mitigation
for Enhancement credit at a 2:1 ratio. In order to approve that these areas meet all of 15A
NCAC 0213 .0295 (m)(2)(F), DMS shall demonstrate that grazing was the predominant land use in
these areas since the effective date of the Randleman Buffer Rules (1999).
o Conservation easement boundaries have not changed since recorded in 2006, with the
exception of a .087 acre area reduced from the total 9.71 acres.
o Bowman Site/Mt. Pleasant Creek Restoration Plan dated December 2007 and submitted
December 2007 along with PCN # 2007-2252 —
■ Pg 10; Section 2.4 (Historical Land Use & Development Trends) — states that
"Cattle have not been totally fenced out of the stream and therefore a portion of
the stream banks have been impacted by these large animals..." This suggests
that cattle were fenced out of some areas of the stream but not others.
■ Pg 20; Section 4.1 on page 20 states that "...4.72 acres of wooded buffer will be
preserved." This suggests that there were some areas in the CE that were
originally planned to be "Preserved", but nothing indicates that excluding cattle
was part of the preservation efforts.
Page 113

No visual representation or clear description is provided to demonstrate that
cattle grazing was the predominant land use at the time of the PCN submittal in
December 2007. Nor was information provided showing where fencing was
planned to be installed by DOT.
o Mitigation Plan submitted on April 20, 2016 with PCN #2007-2252v2 —
■ States that cattle were excluded in 2009 by DOT
Pg. 16, Section 4.2 — states that "cattle were totally fenced out of the stream
when the easement was finalized for the site". According to the CE, the CE was
recorded on June 26, 2006, therefore this statement suggests that all fencing
was installed by June 26, 2006 which is prior to the PCN submittal to DWR in
December 2007
■ Pg. 16, Section 4.2 — states that "The 4 -strand high tensile fencing was
completed in 2009", which suggests that there was fencing installed
somewhere, but not specifically for exclusion of cattle.
■ No visual representation or clear description is provided to demonstrate that all
riparian areas proposed for Riparian Buffer Enhancement under NCAC 02B .0295
(m)(2)(F) had cattle grazing as the predominant land use prior to the installation
of the fence by DOT in 2009,
o Site visit on January 26, 2016 — No evidence of cattle was observed within these areas
o At this time, DWR does not have conclusive documentation that clearly demonstrates
that cattle grazing was the predominate land use in all areas of C1, C2, C3 and D up to
DOT/DMS acquisition. Therefore, at this time, DWR will approve the use of these areas
for Preservation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (m)(2)(D), unless further documentation can
be obtained. Dated pictures depicting presence of cattle, a map depicting the previous
cattle grazing areas with corresponding dates when cattle were removed from those
areas, a letter from the landowner, etc. are additional items that may demonstrate
these areas comply with the rule.
o Pg 20; last paragraph under Riparian Buffer = indicate the maximum distance from the
TOB where buffer mitigation is being sought. 200'?
Map 6.5
o Depict the widths of riparian areas from TOB as 0-100' and 101-200' separately rather
than as "100+". Any areas that surpass 200' cannot be counted towards buffer credit and
need to be removed from the assets. Parts of C 1 beyond 100' appear further than 200'
o Indicate what a "BMU" is. If it is acres, please indicate "acres" on the table as well.
Section 7.0
o Add a column for "remedial measures" to Component/Feature table' for each component,
add the following "any remediation efforts performed will be documented in each
monitoring report".
Section 8.0 (Pg25) Vegetation
o Revise to comply with 15A NCAC .0295 (i)(4)(B). As noted in the rule, native volunteers
may be included to meet these performance standards. No one native hardwood tree
or native shrub species, whether planted or volunteer, can account for more than 50%
of the established stems that DMS chooses to use towards their performance standards
of 260 stems/acre. A minimum of 4 species must be represented.
Page 213

o Need to state that no one species planted (since your plan involves planting) will be
greater than 50% of planted species.
o When monitoring the site, DWR will be using the data submitted in the annual
monitoring reports to determine whether the performance standards are being met
each year
Section 9.0
o Random plots: Plot placement will need to be representative of the entire mitigation area,
0- (+/-)200' from each tributary. Since a majority of the planted area is within 0-100'
from TOB, DWR recommends that this plot be placed within this area.
o Rotating plots: Indicate the frequency that plots will be rotated? Plot placement will need
to be representative of the entire mitigation area, 0- (+/-)200' from each tributary. DWR
recommends that 1 rotating plot be placed within 0-100' from TOB and remain in that
area for each rotation. The other plot should be placed within 101-200' from TOB and
remain in that area for each rotation.
o Is this Level 1 or Level 2 monitoring? If DMS chooses to use volunteer stems towards
their performance standards, then the composition and density of the volunteer stems
shall be provided in the monitoring reports.
Section 11.0
o Add that notifications will also be sent to "DWR"
Page 313