The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20050408 Ver 2_Buffer CO Report 2019_20200615ID#* 20050408 Version* 2 Select Reviewer:* Katie Merritt Initial Review Completed Date 06/15/2020 Mitigation Project Submittal - 6/15/2020 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No Type of Mitigation Project:* r Stream r Wetlands W Buffer r- Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Melonie Allen Project Information .................................................................................................................................................................................... ID#:* 20050408 Existing IDr Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank Project Name: Ut Sandy Creek Charles Williams County: Randolph Document Information Email Address:* melonie.allen@ncdenr.gov Version: *2 Existing Version Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Closeout Report File Upload: CharlesWilliams_80_BufferCORpt_2019 revised 5.66MB 2020.pdf Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted... Signature Print Name:* Melonie Allen Signature:* NC DMS Closeout Report Project Type: Riparian Buffer & Nutrient Offset Originally submitted 2019/ Revised 2020 Project Name Sandy Creek — Charles Williams (G) DMS Project ID 80 Full Delivery Contract # NA Institution/Contract Date 12/12/2007 Basin Cape Fear 8-digit CU 03030003 County Randolph Applicable Buffer Rule (s) 15A NCAC 02B .0295 Non -Diffuse Flow Area Removed: Memo or W.S. calculation NA Date Planted 1/27/2014 Date of Supplemental Plant NA Protection mechanism Sandy Creek Easement document Easement Acreage 18.004 ac Stewards NCDOT Encroachments & Resolution N Accepted for transfer to stewardship Y This report has been amended, see Appendix B, to include supplemental monitoring required by the NCIRT to close the stream and wetland assets in 2019. The additional data consists of random plot surveys in areas identified by the IRT during the 2019 site visit. Asset Table ,..�. 91 Stream Riparian Wetland Wri-riparian wetland Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorus Nutrient Offset Nutrient Offset Ype R RE R RE R RE orals 1 e 0.98 Project Cc 3%.847 p.nent_ Restoration or Restoration Project Component 8tationinglLocation Existing Footage/ Acreage Approach Restoration Footage or Mitigation orr Equivalent Acrcagc Ratio 5troam Enhanasmerd 10+00 io 27+53 1,753 linear �c-ct El RE 1.753 1.5. 1 Riparian 1VeUand areas east and west of UT rt_95 acres E RE 1 h Enhancement to Sandy Greek _' Buffer Restoration Sandy Greek and UT to 193,090 square feet rN R 193.090 1 . 1 (TOB - 50') Sandy Creels Buffer Reslmdion (57 Sandy Creek and UT 10 2 San Creek 193,757 square feet R R 193.757 t Success Criterion Project Component Success Criteria per Approved Mitigation Plan Success Criteria Met Riparian Buffer 320 planted hardwood stems/ac 12 vegetation plots 8 of 12 plots met parameter Plots 6,8,11, and 12 failed to meet the320 stems per acre performance standard; however only one of these plots (6) was located completely within designated buffer restoration zone. Plot 6 met the standard when considering volunteer species such as silky dogwood and black willow. Four new random transects were surveyed in 2019 per IRT request based on visual assessment of the site. Each transect was 0.0247 acres in size (standard monitoring plot). Random transect 2 was located in the buffer mitigation zone and exhibited a denisty of 365 stems per acre. Map of transect and plot data appended to the 2019 report (Appendix C). Asset Map Vegetation Data Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species Species MY5 Plot 1 Scientific Mama Common Name MY5 Plot 2 MY5 Plot 3 Stem Count by MY5 Plat 4 Species, by Plot MY5 Plot 5 - DMS Project :0 MY5 Plot 6 MY5 Plot 7 MY5 Plot 8 MY5 Plot 9 MY5 Plot 10 MY5 Plot 11 MY5 Plot 12 Type Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Acer negundo boxelder Tree 4 5 5 4 4 Acer rubrum red maple Tree 4 1 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 ? Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 4 4 1 1 Carya hickory Tree 1 1 1 1 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttanbush Shrub Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 5 Diospyros vr'rginiarro persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fraxlnus pennsylvarrrca green ash Tree 14 1s 3 2 4 6 2 2 3 3 5 27 1 1 Z 2 2 2 2 i flex deciduQ possumhaw shrub Juglons n gra black walnut Tree 2 Liquldambar styraclflua sweetgum Tree 11 1 4 ? Lirlodendron tube fern tuliptree Tree 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 magnolia vlrglniana sweetbay Tree Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 Platanus occidentalls American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree Quercus oak Tree Z 2 Quercuslaurifalla laurel oak Tree 2 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Quercusmiclraax+i swamp chestnut oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 Quercus phePas willow oak Tree z 2 4 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 Z 2 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Salix nlgra black willow Tree 13 2 SQmbucus canadensls elderberry Shrub Sassafras albldurn sassafras Tree 1 Ulmus elm Tree 1 1 Ulmus amerrcon❑ American elm Tree Ulmusrubra slippery elm Tree Unknown Unk. Monitoring Year 5 Stem count 14 33 10 14 9 22 12 14 9 10 6 13 10 33 7 11 12 21 10 17 5 9 6 12 Monitoring Year 5 (2018) 566.6 1333.5 404.7 566.6 364.2 890.3 485.6 566.6 364.2 404.7 242.8 526.1 404.7 1335.5 283.3 445.2 485.6 849.8 404.7 688.0 202.3 364.2 242.8 435.6 Monitoring Year 4 (2017) 566.6 1578.3 445.2 526.1 364.2 930.8 607.0 647.5 495.6 607.0 293.3 769.9 485.6 1173.6 283.3 849.9 364.2 769.9 364.2 607.0 202.3 607.0 161.9 647.5 Monitoring Year 3 (2016) 566.6 2144.8 607.0 890.3 364.2 990.3 689.0 728.4 485.6 607.0 283.3 526.1 526.1 688.0 323.7 364.2 323.7 809.4 485.6 1052.2 283.3 566.6 242.8 1961.6 Monitoring Year 2 {2015) 566.6 1173.6 607.0 809.4 404.7 930.8 729.4 768.9 526.1 526.1 404.7 495.6 689.0 809.4 404.7 4C4.7 647.5 1173.61 445.2 688.0 495.6 930.8 364.2 809.4 Monitoring Year 1 (2014) 526.1 890.3 0.0 0.0 283.3 768.9 283.3 1 283.3 1 323.7 1 323.71 242.8 1 323.7 1 8C.9 1 202.3 1 90.9 1 8C.9 1 242.8 1445.2 1 16 1. 9 1 323.71 121.4 1 283.31 283.3 526.1 Appendix A: Property Ownership Information & Verification of Protection Mechanism The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following documents(s), available at the specified county register of deeds office and is linked to the property portfolio at: https://files.nc.gov/ncdeg/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Property/Property%20Portfol 0 SandvCreekCharlesWilliams PD 2006.pdf Project Name 11 County I Grantor Name I Deed info I Property Rights Sandy Creek -- Randolph Mark T. Lineberry and wife, Paula W. Lineberry DB 2151, P 309 ronservation Easement Charles Williams Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DOT Stewardship Program. Appendix B: DWR Correspondence From: Merritt. Katie To: Allen. Melonie Cc: Corson. Kristie; Higgins. Karen; Homewood. Sue Subject: Re: Verification of Buffer Rule application Date: Monday, December 10, 2018 11:21 Attachments: imaae001.ona Hey Melonie, My recollection of a situation similar to this, was that the location of mitigation has to comply with 0295 regardless of it being grandfathered prior to the rule, in order to use 0295 to generate alternative credits. Therefore, in order to apply any of 0295 to the rule, the project has to meet the locational requirements of the Rule. If the site isn't in the Randleman Watershed, it cannot be used to gain additional mitigation under Rule 0295 (o) since it doesn't comply with the location requirements of the Rule. The grandfathered memo for Randleman only allows the use of those sites to generate credits under the old rules. I have copied Karen and Sue in case they have anything to add that I missed. Thank you for reminding me about this. I'm sorry it has been so long to get a response from me. Thanks, katie Get Outlook for iOS From: Allen, Melonie <melonie.allen@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 10:04 AM To: Merritt, Katie Cc: Corson, Kristie Subject: RE: Verification of Buffer Rule application Hey Katie, Checking in on this to see if you had a chance to talk to Karon, we are trying to get our database and asset tables correct for closeout in 2019. Thanks, Melonie From: Merritt, Katie Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 12:33 PM To: Allen, Melonie <melonie.allen@ncdenr.gov> Subject: RE: Verification of Buffer Rule application Hey Melonie, I'll get back to you soon on this. I have not forgotten about you. I need to check with Karen first before I respond and she has been out sick since last Wednesday. Thanks, Katie From: Allen, Melonie Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 5:01 PM To: Merritt, Katie <katie.merritt@ncdenr.gov> Subject: Verification of Buffer Rule application Katie, Please forgive me for repeating myself again and again and again.... I want to make sure I have the interpretation of the application of the old DMS sites that were instituted under original buffer rule and closing under current consolidated rule. The Sandy Creek Charles Williams Site mitigation plan was completed in 2009 and the site was added to the DWR grandfathered list (it has a G in our database). It is in Cape Fear 03 below the Randleman reservoir but since it was grandfathered it is subject to the Randleman Rules with a potential buffer width of 200 ft. Most of the project was in cleared pasture so will be restoration. There is an area of the project where we excluded cattle and did some limited planting due to existing mature buffer. I think that since this area was in monitoring at the time of the current rule this area is eligible for alternative buffer, retroactive credit and I would like to apply the Enhancement of grazing areas at 2:1 in this area. Is this possible? Thanks, Melonie Melonie Allen Science & Analysis Division of Mitigation Services Department of Environmental Quality 919-707-8540 office 919-368-9352 cell Melonie.Allena-ncdenr.gov CW�XS2 5 Legend♦♦ �o Transect " e♦ ♦� dissolved —El —stations �� ♦� • contingency_GeoTaggedPhotosT CWkXS3'♦ Stream Enhancement Stream Enhancement 1.5:1 ♦♦ XSections �♦ �♦ CW_VegPlots_MY5 ♦♦ ♦♦� , s♦ a-� _ ® Wetland Enhancement �, 7 CW_Final_Buffer_Assets distance N ♦� 50 W � E 100 ® 200 S WVSeasement crest_gauge_point PAM Stream Riparian Wetland Nan -riparian wetland Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorus Nutrient Offset Nutrient Offset Type R RE R RE R RE iotala 1.168 0.98 386.947 Restoration or Restoration [�fiRaan Project Component Stationingil-ocation Existing Footage.+Acreage Approach Restoration Footage or Equivalent Acreage Ratio Rati Stream Enhancement 10+00 to 27+53 1,753 linear feet EI RE 1,753 1.5 : 1 Riparian Wetland areas east and west of UT Enhancement to Sandy Creek 1 -9 5 acres E :E 1.95 Buffer Restoration Sandy Creek and UT to 193,090 square fee: R 193,050 (TOB - 50'j Sandy Creek Buffer Restoration {50' Sandy Creek and UT to 193,757 square feet R R 193,757 1 : 1 2W) Sandy Creek Text v� ito] .1 1 550 Feet dM tM 08 U@W 0&fimmwty S .71 VOW. A In B •� ��e=' -�1J, �]tJi�.�-- J�Je��, ��sf}�,-�t��--1 � ��1��iil�, {'�FJ-c�.=�1='��'„ f:. �� _r.. _� �•� �'�, :=rY J9h, awd ffis 918 JJss1 C --�rrsri!JrjfV H 217 West Jones St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Nothing Compares---,,. Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. Appendix C: Debit Ledger