20160372 Ver 2_Response to DWR comments and Revised MP Buffer_20180718

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
ISO 9001:201 S CERTIFIED
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd., Suite 400 • Raleigh, NC 27609 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Date: July 18th, 2018
To: Katie Merritt, DWR
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Subject: Stony Fork Restoration Site
Mitigation Plan Review for Buffer Mitigation — Response to DWR Comments
Neuse River Basin - 03020201
Johnston County, North Carolina
Contract No. #6830
DMS Project #97085
DWR Project Number: 2016-0372
We have addressed each of your comments below. We are attaching a "Buffer Mitigation Plan" that will
be included in Section 12.3 in the revised mitigation plan that should address many of your comments.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.
General comments:
Credit Assets for buffer are inconsistent throughout the document. Inconsistencies noted on
the following: pg. 23, 32, section 12.3 (table)
The inconsistency on page 23 was our error — it showed an earlier version of our calculations.
This has been corrected to match the numbers on page 32 and the table in Section 12.3. All of
these numbers are in agreement now.
2. Provide site photos in the Appendix showing existing conditions of riparian areas proposed for
restoration, & enhancement along T2.2.
We have provided additional photos in the 'Buffer Mitigation Plan" showing the conditions
along T2 before and after physical removal that targeted the larger invasive stems — see
attached.
3. Usually there is an appendix summarizing the buffer mitigation along reaches, which includes
specifics to the monitoring plan, performance standards, credit assets,
restoration/enhancement plan, etc that are different than the stream mitigation plan. Please
provide an appendix titled "Buffer Mitigation Plan".
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWW.KC1. COM

We have prepared the "Buffer Mitigation Plan" to be included in Section 12.3 in the appendices;
this section previously was titled "Buffer Mitigation" and included only the spreadsheet and maps,
but it has been expanded upon to include the information requested in the DWR review. A draft is
being included with these responses for your review.
4. Lack of detail is provided for riparian restoration & enhancement areas:
- SF reaches: Riparian Restoration along South Fork is not described in much detail, other
than in section 6.1 where it vaguely references the removal of privet in the buffer (note that
"buffer" is defined as Zone 1 and Zone 2 and only includes the first 50' from Top of Banks).
For added clarity, please use the term "riparian areas".
We have added additional descriptions of these areas in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". Rather
than organize descriptions of the existing site conditions by reach, we have grouped them by
invasive species type since those drive much of the buffer impacts at the site.
According to the viability letter much is needed in the form of invasive species removal &
management along SF up to its confluence with T1 to receive Restoration credit. Please
explain what KCI will be doing in areas proposed for Restoration along SF & T1.
Please see Section D. Implementation Plan in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". Mitigation work
will consist of mechanical and chemical treatment of invasive species plus plantings of native
hardwoods.
T2.2 was re-evaluated this year based on the substantial privet removal in the buffer. The
Site viability letter indicates that Enhancement & Restoration areas "need to be managed
aggressively during the entire five (5) years." No mention of this is provided in the mitigation
plan. Additionally, planting larger stock of woody stems was also recommended due to the
conditions of the buffer during that site visit in April. Therefore, please provide more detail
so I can confirm it complies with the site viability letter for being eligible for buffer
mitigation. I recommend this level of detail be provided in the appendix requested in Item
#3 above & noted on the Planting Plan sheets
For T2.2, please see Section D. Implementation Plan in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". Mitigation
work will consist of mechanical and chemical treatment of invasive species plus plantings of
native hardwoods.
We have also added in Section E in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan" that we will plant addition
partial forested sections of the easement that have been treated for privet with either one
gallon container trees at a 20 by 20 foot spacing or bare root trees contained in tree shelters
at 10 foot center spacing. This area, approximately 6.2 acres, will also be denoted on the
Planting Plan sheets.
- Many references describing changes to adjacent land uses since the IRT/DWR visit are
provided, but no visual representation is included in the plan. Please include an aerial
showing the current site conditions in and around the proposed easement boundary. Please
reference the new aerial as a Figure and incorporate that figure in text where KCI references
future roads, construction, development, crossings, etc.
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\\ K( 1.com4

We have put together a map showing the new development (Sherrill Farms Phase 1 to the
north of the center of the project, currently in progress, and Phase 2 to the southeast of the
project, still in the planning stages; it is Attachment H for the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". We
have also inserted a recent aerial image from March 2018 that shows the most recent
development to the north of the site. We will use this aerial as a background in the mitigation
plan figures as well.
Section 12.3: Map Sheets
- Map Sheet #2 -Shows the west side of the farm path between T1/SF confluence and T2/SF
confluence proposed for Preservation credit. However, the viability letter indicates the pine
plantation is not suitable for any credit. Please revise credits accordingly to comply with the
viability letter.
We have changed this area to no credit (see revised map sheets attached).
- Sheets do not accurately depict current land uses in close proximity to the project
easement. Please use the aerial requested in #5 above as the base layer for this section.
We are now using the 2018 aerial discussed above for these maps.
6. Section 6.10: lacks essential details. Many areas on this site require special attention with
regards to the stems planted, stock and density. Please add detail to the planting plan using
specific areas where special attention is warranted (see viability letter). (example: Enhancement
areas are described in the viability letter as having no understory; therefore, DWR recommends
KCI be selective when choosing what plants to use to establish a healthy understory in areas
receiving Enhancement credit.
Section 6.10 will be updated to reflect the information presented in Section E. Planting Plan in the
"Buffer Mitigation Plan". Partially forested sections of the easement that have been treated for
privet will be supplementally planted with either one gallon container trees at a 20 by 20 foot
spacing or bare root trees contained in tree shelters 10 foot center spacing. These species may
consist of river birch, sycamore, or any of the five oak species listed in the primary planting zone.
7. Section 5.0:
Please add a goal that targets a high level of intervention and management of invasive
species within the riparian areas. This should be a goal for this site considering that a
1:1 and 2:1 ratio has been agreed to by the DWR for the removal and management of
the invasives present for buffer mitigation.
We prefer to have broad goals and believe the current second goal encompasses invasive species
management. We did add to the objectives for the second goal: "Treat invasive plant populations
and plant the site with native trees" to emphasize the importance of the task of removing these
plants. The measurement tool of species composition/diversity takes into account the number and
type of species present, and will track any invasive species present during monitoring events.
8. Table 16: a ratio of 3:1 is shown in the column for areas >100' from top of bank, and therefore
the amount of credits are higher than if using 33% as required in the buffer mitigation rule.
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\N W%V. R, 1. Lo %d

Adjust credits based on using 33% instead of 3:1. Example: 37,091 * .33=12,240 whereas
37,091/3 = 12,364. Note: the mitigation banks are required to use the 33%.
We have corrected the value used to 33.0% for the two pertinent calculations. We show 3.03:1
as the ratio in Table 16 to maintain the formatting of that table for DMS, but we used 33.0% for
all of the calculations.
9. Section 7.0:
a. Riparian Buffer Performance should be included in the added appendix with that new
appendix referenced here in this section
Please see Section G in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan", which will be referenced in the
revised mitigation plan.
b. In this part, there are two different performance standards being stated, however KCI
needs to choose which one they want to be held accountable for. Here are the two
performance standards to choose from:
1. ...a minimum of 4 native hardwood tree species with no species greater than
50% of planted stems; or
2. four native hardwood tree and native shrub species, with no species greater
than 50% of planted stems
We have changed it to indicate we would like to use four native trees.
c. If you want to include volunteer species, that's fine. Clarify that only "desirable
volunteers may be included to meet performance standards and upon DWR approval".
Per your request as well as based on comments from USACE during their review, we have
changed this to read: "For any volunteer tree stem to count toward vegetative success, it
must be a species from the approved planting list included in the Mitigation Plan."
10. Section 8.0:
We have included an overview of proposed monitoring in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan", Section F,
and will update the revised mitigation plan to be consistent with this section.
i. DWR requests that monitoring be done no earlier than the end of August and no later
than mid-December. Mitigation banks are held to this standard.
We have changed this.
ii. Add a statement clarifying that vegetation monitoring will begin no earlier than at least
5 months post -planting efforts. Currently, it says after the first full growing season.
We have amended this to say "Beginning at the end of the first growing season and no
sooner than 5 months following planting....".
iii. Add a statement that the monitoring will be for a period of five monitoring years or until
DWR approval. (emphasis added)
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\N W% .r.( 1.com4

We have added this in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan".
Clarify that the parameters being monitored are mainly for planted stems.
iv. Why are exotic and invasive "stems" going to be included in the stem counts?
This allows us to quantify the number of invasive species present versus the desirable
species.
v. Section 5.1- 0295 (2)(E) indicates that the monitoring plan shall also include the "health
and average stem densities" (emphasis added). Add clarity to this section to meet the
rule expectation that vigor is an important parameter to note in the annual reports.
We added a sentence stating that "Height will be used as a determination of plant vigor"
in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan". Height is already included as one of the plot
measurements. Per Section 8 in the DMS mitigation plan for Vegetative Performance,
trees in each plot must average 7 feet in height at Year 5, and we added that to the "Buffer
Mitigation Plan" as well in Section G.
vi. Figure 10 shows the approximate location of monitoring plots. --DWR recommends
ensuring that each reach has a plot located on both sides of the stream where
restoration or enhancement is being generated for buffer mitigation.
-Please do not place plots within or partially within a buffer preservation area.
None of the current plots are mapped within preservation areas, although they may
appear close to the boundaries at the scale of Figure 10.
-Please add another permanent plot within the buffer enhancement area along T2 along
the right bank.
We have included another permanent plot along T2s right bank as requested — please see
the revised Figure 10 in the attachments and plot table below.
-Where non -permanent random plots are installed each monitoring year, DWR would
like to know what parameters KCI will use to determine where the plots will be placed
to accurately represent the planted and partially planted areas. For example: areas
within just 0-50' and/or 51-200', Enhancement areas, Restoration areas, etc. This level
of detail is necessary to determine if the buffer mitigation areas are being monitored in
the appropriate locations.
For the permanent plots, we had 5 plots in the restoration areas and 1 plot in the
enhancement area. We have further described and modified the distribution of the plots
as follows. The random plots will be selected during each annual monitoring event using
these criteria.
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\N W% .K( 1.com4

Veg Plot
Reach
Buffer Mitigation
Distance
from TOB
Bank
Type
1
SF1
Restoration
51-200'
Left
Permanent
2
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Permanent
3
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
4
T1
Restoration
51-200'
Right
Permanent
5
T2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
6
T2
Enhancement
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
7
T2
Enhancement
51-200'
Right
Permanent
8
SF1
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Random
9
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
left
Random
10
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Random
11
SF3
Enhancement
TOB -50'
Right
Random
12
T1
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Random
11. Section 9.0: Add DWR to this paragraph for purposes of notification and contingency planning
We have amended this sentence in the revised mitigation plan to read that "....the sponsor shall
notify the members of the IRT as well as NCDWR's 401 and Buffer Permitting Branch staff and
work with both groups to develop contingency plans and remedial actions".
12. Section 12.1: Plan Sheets
Sheet 6: Tributary 113 & 1A are new tribs proposed off T1. Buffer Credit will need to be
deducted from the footpint where these streams will be located. Figures provided in this
plan do not currently show that deduction. Buffer credit is only viable adjacent T1.
We have removed the bankfull extent of T1A from the buffer credits. Based on USACE
comments during the IRT review, we are removing T1B from the project altogether. In
addition, we have deducted the footprint of T3 from the buffer credit calculations; this is
an additional tributary that was added for stream credit that flows into Stony Fork Reach
1 (SF1).
Sheet 14: bare roots are the only size of stems shown to be planted other than live
stakes. Is KCI not intending on planting larger stock within the buffer Enhancement
areas along T2.2? (see viability letter note)
As noted above, we have changed this sheet to show that the enhancement sections of
the easement will be supplementally planted with either one gallon container trees at a
20 by 20 foot spacing or bare root trees contained in tree shelters 10 foot center spacing.
These species may consist of river birch, sycamore, or any of the five oak species listed in
the primary planting zone.
13. Section 12.3:
a. I like this table!
b. please give the table a title for referencing.
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\\ K( 1.com4

We have named this Table 1. Buffer Project Areas and Assets for the "Buffer Mitigation
Plan".
c. This table shows different summations of credit potential than other parts of this plan.
Please address all inconsistencies in credit assets for buffer mitigation prior to final
submittal
These have all been corrected. See revised values in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan."
d. There is a subtotal of 45,445 ft2 of buffer preservation credits after applying the ratios
and % reductions; which is below the EPA of 175,721ft2. However, the EPA of 175,721
is then applied to a ratio of 10:1 on the next row implying that the project will only yield
17,572 ft2. Please explain why the 10:1 was applied on the EPA and which row of
subtotals KCI is using towards their credit assets.
We calculated the preservation credits as follows —please correct us if we are using an
incorrect method (note numbers are slightly different now due to edits in this most
recent version).
o Eligible area (square footage) for preservation is
(R+E)/0.75-(R+E)
(525,087/0.75) — (525,087) = 175,029 square feet
o On-site area of preservation mitigation is 424,660 square feet
o Of this, we used 175,029 square feet of preservation that are eligible for full
preservation credit (minimum 30' to 100' buffer area) at 10°o, therefore the final
preservation credit we are claiming is 17,503 credits.
14. Note that this site cannot be used to generate nutrient offset credits according to the viability
letter.
The viability letters are included in the appendix for reference. Assets generated on this site are
retained by the State of North Carolina per a legally recorded easement. KCI will report the riparian
buffer assets per the contract and RFP specifications as required by DMS.
Sincerely,
Tim Morris
Project Manager
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWW. KCI. COM

BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
Stony Fork Restoration Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
DWR Project Number: 2016-0372
DMS Project Number 97085
DMS Contract 6830
Neuse River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03020201
Prepared by:
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC;
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 1

Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 2

Table of Contents
A. BUFFER MITIGATION SUMMARY.........................................................................................................4
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................4
B.1 Chinese Privet................................................................................................................................4
B.2 Kudzu.............................................................................................................................................5
B.3 Japanese Honeysuckle................................................................................................................... 5
C. BUFFER PHOTOGRAPHS....................................................................................................................... 6
D. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN......................................................................................................................7
D.1 Pre -construction Phase.................................................................................................................7
D.2 Construction Phase........................................................................................................................7
D.3 Post -Construction Phase/Adaptive Management.......................................................................8
E. PLANTING PLAN....................................................................................................................................8
F. MONITORING PLAN..............................................................................................................................9
G. PROJECT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................9
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Table 3. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
II. Adjacent Development Map
III. Invasive Species Coverage Map
IV. NCDWQ STREAM DETERMINATION LETTER
V. NCDWR MITIGATION VIABILITY LETTER
VI. NCDWR MITIGATION VIABILITY LETTER REVISED
VII. BUFFER MAP SHEETS
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 3

A. BUFFER MITIGATION SUMMARY
The Stony Fork Restoration Site (SFRS) is a stream and riparian buffer mitigation site located in Johnston
County, NC. The site will produce riparian buffer credits for the Neuse Basin under Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0295, effective November 1, 2015. This plan provides an overview of the existing buffer conditions,
proposed mitigation actions, and monitoring performance standards along the three project subject
streams, Stony Fork (SF), which has three reaches, and Tributaries 1 (T1) and 2 (T2). There are two
additional project streams (T1A and T3) that are not subject to the buffer rule. Below are the anticipated
buffer credits that will be produced from this project, and project maps are included in the attachments.
Additional information on the stream mitigation components is included in the mitigation plan prepared
for NCDMS.
Table 1. Buffer Credit Summary
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The land uses at the project site are a combination of farmland, pine plantation, and reforested
hardwoods. In recent years, residential development has increased to the north of the project site, and
an additional development is proposed to the southeast (see Attachment II). In the revegetated portions
of the site, invasive species have become prevalent throughout the riparian areas of SFRS. Dominant
species include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), kudzu (Pueraria montana), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica). Treatment of these populations began in November and December 2017 with
mechanical removal and will continue with additional physical and chemical treatments as the project
proceeds (see Section D below). A map has been prepared showing the original extent of aerial coverage
of these primary invasive species. It is included as Attachment III. Hardwoods, where present, consist of
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvonica). Below is further
detail about these invasive plant populations.
B.1 Chinese Privet
Chinese privet is found throughout the forested components of the project varying in lateral
extent and density throughout the project area. The areas of highest density were found along
Stony Fork from the upstream limit of the project to the confluence of T1 (Attachment 1, Area A).
The entire riparian area within the easement and extending outside the easement is dominated
by privet in this area. A second high density area was located within the riparian area along T2
from the upstream extent of the project tributary to the confluence of Stony Fork (Attachment 1,
Area B). Again, most of the mid -story canopy is dominated by privet with a few mature desirable
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 4
Existing
Creditable
Project Component
Square
Footage or
Restoration
Mitigation
Mitigation
Notes/Comments
Level
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Footage
Acreage
Buffer Restoration
TOB to 100'
413,194
413,194
R
1:1
413,194
Buffer Restoration
101-200'
37,091
37,091
R
3.03:1
12,240
Buffer Enhancement
TOB to 100'
74,802
74,802
E
2:1
37,401
Preservation limited to no more
Buffer Preservation
424,660
175,029
P
10:1
17,503
than 25% of total buffer
TOB to 100'
mitigation area.
TOTAL
949,747
700,116
480,338
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The land uses at the project site are a combination of farmland, pine plantation, and reforested
hardwoods. In recent years, residential development has increased to the north of the project site, and
an additional development is proposed to the southeast (see Attachment II). In the revegetated portions
of the site, invasive species have become prevalent throughout the riparian areas of SFRS. Dominant
species include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), kudzu (Pueraria montana), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica). Treatment of these populations began in November and December 2017 with
mechanical removal and will continue with additional physical and chemical treatments as the project
proceeds (see Section D below). A map has been prepared showing the original extent of aerial coverage
of these primary invasive species. It is included as Attachment III. Hardwoods, where present, consist of
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvonica). Below is further
detail about these invasive plant populations.
B.1 Chinese Privet
Chinese privet is found throughout the forested components of the project varying in lateral
extent and density throughout the project area. The areas of highest density were found along
Stony Fork from the upstream limit of the project to the confluence of T1 (Attachment 1, Area A).
The entire riparian area within the easement and extending outside the easement is dominated
by privet in this area. A second high density area was located within the riparian area along T2
from the upstream extent of the project tributary to the confluence of Stony Fork (Attachment 1,
Area B). Again, most of the mid -story canopy is dominated by privet with a few mature desirable
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 4

tree species mixed in to comprise a patchy overstory. In these two areas, the privet dominates
the mid -story canopy and had crowded out more desirable understory species. The size of the
privet ranges in diameter from seedling size to 8" DBH. Privet is also located sporadically within
the riparian zone throughout the rest of the project. In many of these areas it does not dominate
the understory, but instead is interspersed with more desirable native trees and shrubs as noted
above.
B.2 Kudzu
Kudzu dominates the area of the project surrounding T1 as well as a large section of Stony Fork in
the general vicinity of T1. This approximately 3 -acre area is essentially a monoculture of kudzu
during the growing season, with vines extending up and into the tree canopy that located along
the edge of the easement boundary. The approximate location of the kudzu infestation is shown
in Attachment 2. Other small patches of kudzu exist within the easement, especially along the
farm road approximately 1,500 feet below the confluence of T1 and Stony Fork.
B.3 Japanese Honeysuckle
Japanese honeysuckle is located sporadically throughout the easement area, but has a stronger
presence along Tributary 2, especially in areas directly adjacent (10-15') from the T2 stream
channel.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 5

C. BUFFER PHOTOGRAPHS
•..e�h ::
Photo 1. Top of Stony Fork showing privet coverage and other
Photo 2. Kudzu along Stony Fork Reach 2.
invasives prior to removal.
Photo 3. Kudzu near the confluence of Stony Fork and T1. Photo 4. Privet covering T2 channel (approximately halfway
down) prior to removal.
Photo 5: Near top of T2 showing mechanical removal of Photo 6: Lower part of T2 showing another view of privet
privet that occurred in December 2017. removal.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 6
.+\ i18 i
�,
i� �+�' .�
yy a1
� + 14'5 "[ •�
•..e�h ::
Photo 1. Top of Stony Fork showing privet coverage and other
Photo 2. Kudzu along Stony Fork Reach 2.
invasives prior to removal.
Photo 3. Kudzu near the confluence of Stony Fork and T1. Photo 4. Privet covering T2 channel (approximately halfway
down) prior to removal.
Photo 5: Near top of T2 showing mechanical removal of Photo 6: Lower part of T2 showing another view of privet
privet that occurred in December 2017. removal.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 6

D. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The following approach will be used to restore, enhance, and preserve the buffer areas across the site as
outlined in the project maps in the attachments. The dominance of the three target species above will
require a diligent and persistent treatment approach to control and prevent the future encroachment of
these species into the riparian areas. The treatment program will consist of three phases of treatment.
These include the pre -construction, construction, and post -construction phases of treatment.
D.1 Pre -construction Phase
The preconstruction phase started with the physical removal of privet biomass through
mechanical grinding in fall and winter 2017. Physical removal was required because of the degree
of infestation. Chemically treating these areas was not be feasible initially due to the size and
density of the existing privet plants. Physical removal was completed using a FECON mulching
head mounted to a track loader (skid steer). Privet trees were ground into mulch and left in place
to decompose. Pictures showing the condition of T2 after grinding are shown above in Section C.
This first step in the invasive control program allowed for more direct access to the riparian area
for future chemical treatment. It also served to remove the larger privet trees that were acting as
a seed source for the colonization and spread of the privet stand.
In the spring of 2018, topical chemical treatment of privet using a tank mix of active ingredients
triclopyr and glyphosate was completed throughout the riparian areas of the easement using
backpack sprayers. Stumps were also treated using a 40% active ingredient glyphosate solution.
At the same time as privet was being treated, other invasives such as Japanese honeysuckle,
multiflora rose and autumn olive were also treated topically with glyphosate.
The kudzu area was also treated in the Fall 2017 using the active ingredient Clopyralid. The initial
treatment was effective at reducing the aerial standing crop of kudzu by an estimated 50% based
on a re-evaluation in Spring 2018 (post emergence). A second treatment was conducted in the
Spring 2018 on the main kudzu area as well as several smaller patches in other areas of the
easement.
The pre -construction phase activities allowed KCI to establish a baseline condition to lay the
groundwork for the construction phase and -post construction phase programs.
D.2 Construction Phase
Mechanical removal (including grubbing) will occur throughout the stream construction phase
since equipment will be mobilized for an extended duration during construction. This period will
also include the mechanical removal of kudzu after chemical treatments have had adequate time
to translocate to the root system. Debris from mechanical removal of privet and kudzu will be
burned on site. Larger debris remaining from the pre -construction phase will also be burned
during the construction phase. KCI equipment operators are experienced in identifying privet,
kudzu and multiflora rose and understand the need for mechanical removal of these invasives as
they implement the designed stream improvements. The staff is also experienced in minimizing
damage to desirable canopy trees and will avoid critical root zones when possible to minimize
damage to trees that will remain.
A NC licensed aquatic pesticide applicator from KCI (Kevin O'Briant) will be on-site at all times
during construction. In addition to serving as the on-site construction manager, Mr. O'Briant will
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 7

apply, supervise, and oversee the application of herbicides to the target species mentioned above
during the construction process. With the construction duration expected to last 4-5 months
during the growing season, KCI envisions this time period to be critical in the process of
eradicating the dense stands of privet and kudzu (as well as other invasives) that occur on the site.
Weekly treatment of the entire easement area, as well as infested areas outside the easement
where property owners have agreed to allow treatment, are expected to occur during the
construction phase of the project.
D.3 Post -Construction Phase/Adaptive Management
KCI has an active maintenance contract with Riverworks, Inc. for the long-term care of invasive
species on site. This work will be supervised by George Morris, a botanist and experienced invasive
species specialist, with Riverworks. It is anticipated that multiple treatments each year (likely
spring and fall), will be required to control the growth and re -propagation of the invasive
populations within the Stony Fork project. The program is envisioned to cover the full five years
of monitoring required for the stream restoration project; however, the treatment program will
adapt yearly to accommodate the ongoing effectiveness of the treatment work. Chemical
treatment is expected to be the standard process for post construction services, but physical
removal may be required to ensure the survivability of desirable planted trees and native
volunteers.
E. PLANTING PLAN
All unforested portions of the project easement will be planted to establish a forested riparian buffer. At
a minimum, 12.1 acres will be reforested, but additional plantings may take place beyond this area to
ensure an adequate density across the site. The planting plan is shown in greater detail in the project
construction sheets. Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet
spacing). Woody vegetation planting will be conducted during dormancy. Species to be planted may
consist of the following and any substitutions from the planting plan will be taken from this list:
Common Name
River Birch
American Persimmon
Green Ash
Tulip Poplar
American Sycamore
White Oak
Southern Red Oak
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Pin Oak
Willow Oak
Scientific Name
Betula nigra
Diospyros virginiana
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Liriodendron tulipifera
Platanus occidentalis
Quercus alba
Quercus falcata
Quercus michauxii
Quercus palustris
Quercus phellos
In addition, partial overstory forested enhancement sections of the easement that have been treated for
privet will be supplementally planted with either one gallon container trees at a 20 by 20 foot spacing or
bare root trees contained in tree shelters 10 -foot center spacing. These species may consist of river birch,
sycamore, or any of the five oak species listed above.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 8

F. MONITORING PLAN
Vegetation monitoring will take place between the end of August and mid-December. The success of the
riparian plantings will be evaluated using twelve 0.02 -acre square or rectangular plots within the
enhancement and restoration buffer mitigation areas. Six plots will be permanently installed, while the
remainder will be randomly placed at the time of each monitoring visit. The plots will be distributed as
follows:
Table 2. Vegetative Monitoring Plots for Buffer Mitigation
Veg Plot
Reach
Buffer Mitigation
Distance
from TOB
Bank
Type
1
SF1
Restoration
51-200'
Left
Permanent
2
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Permanent
3
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
4
T1
Restoration
51-200'
Right
Permanent
5
T2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
6
T2
Enhancement
TOB -50'
Left
Permanent
7
SF1
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Random
8
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
left
Random
9
SF2
Restoration
TOB -50'
Right
Random
10
SF3
Enhancement
TOB -50'
Right
Random
11
T1
Restoration
TOB -50'
Left
Random
12
T2
Enhancement
51-200'
Right
Random
In the permanent plots, the plant's height, species, location, and origin (planted versus volunteer) will be
noted. In the random plots, species and height will be recorded. Height will be used as a determination of
plant vigor. In all plots, exotic and invasive stems will also be included in the stem counts. Additionally, a
photograph will be taken of each plot. Beginning at the end of the first growing season and no sooner
than 5 months following planting, KCI will monitor the planted vegetation for riparian area success in
monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or until DWR approval is obtained.
G. PROJECT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The vegetation within the areas proposed for riparian buffer credit must contain 260 stems per acre at
the end of five years of monitoring. There should be a minimum of four native hardwood tree species
(inclusive of volunteers), with no species greater than 50% of the stems. Trees in each plot must average
7 feet in height at Year 5. For any volunteer tree stem to count toward vegetative success, it must be a
species from the approved planting list included in the Mitigation Plan.
Buffer Mitigation Plan Page 9

Table 3. Buffer Proiect Areas and Assets
Location
Jurisdictional Streams
Restoration Type
Reach
ID/Compo Buffer Width (ft) Creditable Area
Hent (sf)*
Initial
Credit
Ratio
(x: 1)
% Full Final Credit Riparian Buffer
Credit Ratio (x:1) Credits (BMU)
Rural
Subject
Restoration
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
1
75% 1.33
SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 291,656
100% 1.00 291,656
SF 101-200' 20,075
33%1 3.03 6,625
Enhancement
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
2
75% 2.67 -
SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 16,364
100% 2.00 8,182
101-200'
33% 6.06 -
Rural
Subject
Restoration
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
1
75% 1.33
T1 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 74,430
100% 1.00 74,430
T1 101-200' 17,015
33% 3.03 5,615
Enhancement
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
2
75% 2.67 -
Min. 30' from TOB to 100'
100% 2.00
101-200'
33% 6.06
Rural
Nonsubject
Restoration
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
1
75% 1.33 -
T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 47,108
100% 1.00 47,108
101-200'
1 33% 3.03 -
Enhancement
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
2
1
75% 2.67
T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 58,439
100% 2.00 29,219
101-200'
33% 6.06-
SU BTOTALS I 525,0871 1 462,8351
ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION AREA 1 175,029
Location
Jurisdictional Streams
Restoration Type
Reach
ID/Compo Buffer Width (ft) Creditable Area
Hent (sf)*
Initial
Credit
Ratio
x:l
% Full Final Credit Riparian Buffer
Credit Ratio (x:1) Credits (BMU)
Rural
Subject
Preservation
SF Min. 20' from TOB to 29' 1,378
10
75% 13.33 103
SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 297,223
100% 10.00 29,722
SF 101-200' 9,358
33%1 30.30 309
Nonsubject
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
S
75% 6.67 -
Min. 30' from TOB to 100'
100% 5.00
101-200'
33% 15.15
Rural
Subject
Preservation
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
10
75% 13.33
T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 115,847
100% 10.00 11,585
T2 101-200' 854
1 33% 30.30 28
Nonsubject
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
S
75% 6.67
Min. 30' from TOB to 100'
100%1 5.00 -
101-200'
33%1 15.15
SUBTOTALS 424,660
1 41,747
SUBTOTAL AREA MIN. 30' FROM TOB TO 100' PRESERVATION ELIGIBLE FOR 10:1 CREDITI 413,069
LIMIT OF PRESERVATION BASED ON ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION AREA1 175,0291
101 100%1 101 17,503
TOTAL BUFFER MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE 949,747 1 504,582
TOTAL BUFFER MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION1 700,1161 1 1 1 480,338

-71
A
�
5
e
r•
!
_ ik....
� 1
I 0
-r
r
ATTACHMENT III. EXTENT OF INVASIVE SPECIES, STONY FORK
RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
N
Project Easement (24.4 ac) Kudzu Area
KCIExisting
Project Streams Privet -Area A
0
500 1,000
Feet
nssocif
Other Streams Privet -Area B
Source: Google 2018.

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 28, 2016
Tim Morris
KCI Associates of NC
Landmark Center II
4601 Six Forks Road - Suite 220
Raleigh NC 27609
(via electronic mail)
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DWR Project #: 2016-0372
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Stony Fork
Located at 1955 Federal Rd., Benson, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Morris,
On April 7, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you and
others from KCI Technologies, Inc. at the proposed Stony Fork Mitigation Site (Site) in Benson, NC.
The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within the 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201. The
Site is being proposed as part of a full -delivery stream restoration project for the Division of
Mitigation Services (RFP #16-006477). The Interagency Review Team (IRT) was also present
onsite. At your request, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of features onsite to determine
suitability for buffer and nutrient offset mitigation. Features are more accurately shown in the
.attached maps signed by Ms. Merritt on April 19, 2016. If approved, mitigating this site could
provide stream mitigation credits, riparian buffer credits and/or nutrient offset credits.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features from Top of Bank (TOB) out to 200' for buffer and nutrient
offset mitigation pursuant to Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015) and Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0240 is provided in the table below:
Feature
Classification
*Subject
Landuses
Buffer
**Nutrient
Mitigation Type
to Buffer
Offset Viable
Credit
Rule
at 2,273
Viable
lbs acre
T1
Modified
No
West side of TOB =
Yes
No
Restoration per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
natural
dense monoculture of
(o)(3)
stream
kudzu; East side of
TOB = managed lawn
Stony Fork
Stream
Yes
Canopy comprised
Yes
No
Restoration per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(R1—Tl
mostly of dense mid-
(o)(3) only if invasive vegetation is all
confluence)
story sized privet 6"
removed and managed and impacted
DBH, dense kudzu & a
buffer is replanted with native
sparse fringe of large
hardwoods.
native hardwoods
Stony Fork
Stream
Yes
West side of TOB=
Yes
No
Farm Path only = Restoration
(below T1
farm path and loblolly
(farm
East side of TOB = Preservation per
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Stony Fork Mitigation Site
April 28, 2016
Page 2 of 2
confluence —
pine forest; East side
path &
15A NCAC 026 .0295 (o)(5)
T2
of TOB = Native
East
confluence)
Hardwood forest
side)
Stony Fork
Stream (not
Yes
Native hardwood
Yes
No
Preservation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(below T2
including
forest
(o)(5)
confluence
riparian
throughout
wetlands)
T2.1
Undetermined
on maps
Hay crop & native
n/a
Yes
Need stream determination by DWR
conveyance
hardwood forest mix
to be buffer credit viable; Riparian
Restoration down to crossing &
Restoration outside of the native
hardwood forest down to wood line;
T2.2 to
Stream
Yes
Native hardwood
Yes
No
Preservation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
Stony Fork
forest w/ dense mid-
(o)(5)
story privet along
channel banks
*Subjectivity calls were determined using the 1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most
recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS
**For nutrient offset viability to be determined, the landowner must provide proof in writing that the land is being used for
agriculture or has been used for agriculture previously (prior to rule baseline). Dates, supported by photos or other
written records, must be included to confirm that the uses of the open fields onsite are for hay crop cultivation/row crop.
Maps showing the project site and the features are provided and signed by Ms. Merritt on April 19,
2016. This letter should be provided in all future mitigation plans for this Site. In addition, all
vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian restoration
and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to be eligible for buffer and
nutrient offset credits. In addition, Neuse Buffer mitigation credits generated at this site are not able
to be transferred into nutrient offset credits.
For any areas depicted as not being viable for nutrient offset credit, one could propose a different
measure other than riparian restoration, along with supporting calculations and sufficient detail to
support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to determine viability for nutrient offset
according to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
% 'Uva
aren Higgins, Supe or
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Aerial Map, USGS Topographic Map, NRCS Soil Survey
cc:File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS — Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)

���al��
�- a o l l� - o37a

14, 6
331
IN
lit
ZOO
Vii'
Proposed Easement
11 `� _ •. �i`_'-.-_�, l'1 j �f � it . '�-- " ;- ,✓ f/ .
Project Watershed (537 acres)
® 14 -digit HUC Boundaries �- • --
FIGURE 2. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP N
0 750 1,500 STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE
Source: USGS DRG,
Feet JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC BensonQuad (1973).
1411 q // (-�
037a

•� MO E N m d Z
T m
•�;rte�` `�" °. ai °0 O' —a
rON ad+
O,.N E m ON Cl CNo mOma �
16.
U) W _ Q
�� ��?� a N� m V 0 Ns
u� y m LL O
-0m oa) L) o.r �� Z >,s0
MMOOCZ00
- (d 00 a) T m0 N Q cu co
mLi- 0(7JZOfZ�
Imo.
W
W '*•� ,� - - ADA z
le 04
?P7
LO
ol
,
C
r t
o
Ln
Ree O E
O
LO
1
ul
r
c
a)
E
a)
cn
m
w
0
A)
O

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
July S, 2016
Joe Sullivan
4601 Six Forks Road
Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
Subject: Buffer Determination Letter
NBRRO #16-144
Johnston County
Determination Type:
Buffer
Intermittent/Perennial
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
Start@
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
❑ Intermittent/Perennial Determination (where local buffer
USGSSurvey
ordinances apply)
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 2B .0267)
(governmental and/or interjurisdictional
projects)
Project Name:
Address/Location:
Stream(s):
Stony Fork Restoration Site
Southeast of the Federal Road and Elevation Road intersection in Benson NC
Un -named tributaries to
Determination Date: 6/23/2016
Fork and Stonv Fork
Staff: Erin Deck
Stream
E/I/P*
Not Subject
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Soil
USGSSurvey
To 0
Stony Fork
I
X
Throughout Project Boundary
X
X
T2
UP
X
35.4528
Confluence with
X
X
-78.5224
Stony Fork
T5
I
X
Confluence with
X
X
Off
Stony Fork
property
T6
I
X
35.4517
X
X
and
-78.5216
T7
X
Linear Wetland
X
X
NT
X
Not present on ground
X
X
*E/IIP = Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
Division of Water Resources, Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Operations Section littp://port(il.ncdenr.org."Web/wq!aps
1628 Mail Ser -.,ice Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone: [phone]
Location: 3800 Bamett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax: [phone]

Explanation: The stream(s) listed above has been located on the most recent published NRCS Soil Survey of
Johnston County, North Carolina and/or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale.
Each stream that is checked "Not Subject" has been determined to not be at least intermittent or is not present.
Streams that are checked "Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be
at least an intermittent stream. There may be other streams located on the property that do not show up on the maps
referenced above but may be considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers.
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR may request a determination by the Director. An
appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing. If sending via US Postal Service: c/o Karen Higgins,
DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via
delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.): Karen Higgins; DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit; 512 N. Salisbury
Street; Raleigh, NC 27604.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, unless an appeal is requested within sixty
(60) days.
This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If y ave questions reg this d ation, please feel free to contact Erin Deck at [phone].
S cerel ,
anny S th
Supervisor, Water Quality Regional Operations Center
cc: RRO DWR File Copy

�l
1
V)
rF
T
O
70
fD
N
P+
O
O
3
V
i
12•
rD
f7
r.+

N
01
N
r-+
O
T
O
CD
N
F+
O
O
O
rD
C)
r+

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 16, 2018
Tim Morris
KCI Associates of NC
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via electronic mail: tim.morrisgkci.com )
ROY COOPER
co,>ernor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secretor,;
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Director
DWR Project #: 2016-0372
Re: Re-evaluation Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset
Stony Fork Site (T2.2 only)
Located at 1955 Federal Rd., Benson, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Morris,
On April 7, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you and
others from KCI Technologies, Inc. at the proposed Stony Fork Mitigation Site (Site) in Benson, NC.
The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within the 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201. The
Site is being proposed as part of a full -delivery stream restoration project for the Division of
Mitigation Services (RFP #16-006477). The Interagency Review Team (IRT) was also present
onsite. On April 28, 2016, DWR issued a Site Viability Letter for the subject site.
At your request, on March 29, 2018, Ms. Merritt performed an additional site assessment of the
feature labeled as T2.2 in the table below to determine if riparian conditions had changed since the
site visit on April 7, 2016. As referenced in the letter dated April 28, 2016, the riparian land -use was
described as being "Native hardwood forest with dense mid -story privet along channel banks " and
the mitigation type for this feature was determined to be Preservation per 15A NCAC 02B . 0295
(0)(5). During the site visit on March 29, 2018, Ms. Merritt observed the substantial removal of mid -
story and understory privet to the extent that the riparian buffer was completely void of understory
and mid -story woody species. Ms. Merritt determined that onsite conditions observed on March 29,
2018 indicated a need to re-evaluate the mitigation type along this entire reach. Ms. Merritt placed
four (4) flags along the riparian areas of T2.2 indicating the mitigation type determined. Placement
of the four flags can be seen in the attached aerial labeled "Buffer Mitigation -Field Points" provided
by KCI. Additionally, the mitigation types described in the table below are better represented in the
attached aerial labeed "Buffer Mitigation — Sheet 3". If approved, mitigating this site could provide
stream mitigation credits, riparian buffer credits and/or nutrient offset credits.
This letter only replaces the site viability assessment of the mitigation type for the stream labeled as
T2.2 in the letter dated April 28, 2016. All other parts of the letter dated April 28, 2016 remain
unchanged.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features and their associated mitigation determination for the riparian
areas are provided in the table below. The evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB) out to
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Stony Fork Mitigation Site
April 16, 2018
Page 2 of 2
200' from each existing feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective
November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Feature
Classification
'Subject
to Buffer
Riparian Land uses of
Buffer
Credit
ZNutrient
Offset Viable
Mitigation Tvpe Determination w/in riparian
ID
in the field
Feature onsite
areas
Rule
at 2.273
0-200'
Viable
(see Sheet 3 for location of mitigation)
lbs acre
T2.2 to
Stream
Yes
Combination of Full,
Yes3
No
Open Canopy Areas w/ no understory -
Stony
Partial & Open Canopy
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Fork
of Native hardwood
forest with invasive
Partial Canopy Areas w/ partial understory -
privet removed
Enhancement Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Full Canopy Area w/ full understory -
Preservation Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
Buffer mitigation areas where privet was
removed need to be managed aggressively
during the entire five (5) years of monitoring to
keep privet manageable. DWR recommends
planting larger stock woody stems in these
areas.
'�)ubjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated April 5, 2018 and April 6, 2018
using the 1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil
survey map prepared by the NRCS.
2 NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Buffer Establishment
'The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total
area of buffer mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation only site
to comply with this rule.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters for
buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient
load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for approval prior to any
mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0240.

Stony Fork Mitigation Site
April 16, 2018
Page 2 of 2
This viability assessment will expire on April 16, 2020 or upon the submittal of an As -Built
Report to the DWR, whichever comes first. Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you
have any questions regarding this correspondence.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
KAH/km
Attachments: Buffer Mitigation -Field Points, Buffer Mitigation — Sheet 3
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS — Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)

t-�

Sheet I
h
A
TI
heet 2
"1%6
-low-
10
vAjr-7

� MATCHLINE WITH
SHEET 1
t �
l
x
MATCHLINE WITH
SHEET 3
Buffer Mitigation - Sheet 2
�� 0 50 100 Image Source:
KCIFeet Google Earth, 3/2018
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Project Easement
Buffer Width Zones
Buffer Mitigation
Buffer Restoration
Buffer Enhancement
® Buffer Preservation

Table 3. Buffer Proiect Areas and Assets
Location
Jurisdictional Streams
Restoration Type
Reach
ID/Compo Buffer Width (ft) Creditable Area
nent (sf)*
Initial
Credit
Ratio
1x:11
% Full Final Credit Riparian Buffer
Credit Ratio (x:1) Credits (BMU)
Rural
Subject
Restoration
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
1
75% 1.33
SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 291,656
100% 1.00 291,656
SF 101-200' 20,075
33%1 3.03 6,625
Enhancement
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
2
75% 2.67 -
SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 16,364
100% 2.00 8,182
101-200'
33% 6.06 -
Rural
Subject
Restoration
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
1
75% 1.33 -
T1 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 74,430
100% 1.00 74,430
T1 101-200' 17,015
33% 3.03 5,615
Enhancement
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
2
75% 2.67 -
Min. 30' from TOB to 100'
100% 2.00
101-200'
33% 6.06
Rural
Nonsubject
Restoration
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
1
75% 1.33
T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 47,108
100% 1.00 47,108
1 1101-200'
33%, 3.03 -
Enhancement
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
2
75% 2.67
T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 58,439
100%1 2.00 29,219
101-200'
33%1 6.06 -
S U BTOTALS I 525,0871 1 462,8351
ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION AREA i 175,029
Location
Jurisdictional Streams
Restoration Type
Reach
ID/Compo Buffer Width (ft) Creditable Area
nent (sf)*
Initial
Credit
Ratio
1x:11
% Full Final Credit Riparian Buffer
Credit Ratio (x:1) Credits (BMU)
Rural
Subject
Preservation
SF Min. 20' from TOB to 29' 1,378
10
75% 13.33 103
SF Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 297,223
100% 10.00 29,722
SF 101-200' 9,358
33%1 30.30 309
Nonsubject
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
5
75% 6.67 -
Min. 30' from TOB to 100'
100% 5.00
101-200'
33% 15.15
Rural
Subject
Preservation
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
10
75% 13.33 -
T2 Min. 30' from TOB to 100' 115,847
100% 10.00 11,585
T2 101-200' 854
33% 30.30 28
Nonsubject
Min. 20' from TOB to 29'
5
75% 6.67 -
Min. 30' from TOB to 100'
100% 5.00
101-200'
33%1 15.15
SUBTOTALS 424,660
41,747
SUBTOTAL AREA (SF): Min. 30' from TOB to 100' Preservation 413,069
LIMIT OF PRESERVATION BY TOTAL AREA1 175,0291
101
100%1
101 17,503
TOTAL 949,747 1 504,582
TOTAL WITH LIMITED PRESERVATION 700,116 1 1 1 480,338

w
s
"k
i
L '
Y
1
I
R
VP 7
VP
VP 4
Lv
VP
� h i
FIGURE 10. PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN, STONY FORK RESTORATION SITE, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
�� ❑ Proposed Permanent Veg Plots (7) Stream Restoration Buffer Restoration 0 250 500
Wmmmmk=====J Feet
KCI Proposed Stream Gauges (5) Stream Enhancement I Buffer Enhancement N
Source: Google Earth,
ASSOCIATES Proposed Cross -Sections (16) Stream Enhancement 11 Buffer Preservation 3i2018