20090688 Ver 1_Buffer CO_2019 revised 2020_20200708

ID#* 20090688 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 07/09/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 7/8/2020
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 Beth Allen
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20090688
Existing IDr
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Sandy Creek (Charles Williams)G _ 80
Randolph
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Closeout Report
File Upload: CharlesWilliams_80_BufferCORpt_2019 revised
5.54MB
2020.pdf
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Melonie Beth 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.
Appendix C: Additional Data
Asset Table
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).
Appendix C: Additional Data
Asset Map
Appendix C: Additional Data
Current Plot Data (MY5 2018)
Common Name
080-01-0001 080-01-0002 080-01-0003 080-01-0004 080-01-0005 080-01-0006 080-01-0007 080-01-0008 080-01-0009 080-01-0010 080-01-0011 080-01-0012
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
boxelder 4 5 5 4 4
red maple 4 1 1 1
river birch 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2
American hornbeam 4 4 4 1 1 1
hickory 1 1 1 1 1 1
common persimmon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
green ash 14 14 18 3 3 5 2 2 2 4 4 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 27 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
black walnut 2
Chinese privet 3 1
sweetgum 11 1 4 2
tuliptree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
blackgum 1 1 1
American sycamore 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
oak 2 2 2
laurel oak 2 2 2
overcup oak 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
swamp chestnut oak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
willow oak 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
northern red oak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
black willow 13 2
Common Elderberry
sassafras 1
elm 1 1 1
stems 14 14 33 10 10 14 9 9 22 12 12 14 9 9 10 6 6 8 10 10 33 7 7 11 12 12 21 10 10 17 5 5 9 6 6 12
species ct 1 1 3 5 5 7 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 9 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 7 7 9 7 7 9 4 4 5 4 4 6
stems per acre 567 567 1335 405 405 567 364 364 890 486 486 567 364 364 405 243 243 324 405 405 1335 283 283 445 486 486 850 405 405 688 202 202 364 243 243 486
2017 567 567 1578 445 445 526 364 364 931 607 607 647 486 486 607 283 283 769 486 486 1174 283 283 850 364 364 769 364 364 607 202 202 607 162 162 647
2016 567 567 2145 607 607 890 364 364 890 688 688 728 486 486 607 283 283 526 526 526 688 324 324 364 324 324 809 486 486 1052 283 283 567 243 243 1862
2015 567 567 1174 607 607 809 405 405 931 728 728 769 526 526 526 405 405 486 688 688 809 405 405 405 647 647 1174 445 445 688 486 486 931 364 364 809
2014 283 283 769 283 283 283 324 324 324 243 243 324 81 81 202 81 81 81 243 243 445 162 162 324 121 121 283 283 283 526 219 219 371 381 381 509

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/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Property/Property%20Portfol
io/80_SandyCreekCharlesWilliams_PD_2006.pdf
Project Name County Grantor Name Deed info Property Rights
Sandy Creek --
Charles Williams
(G)
Randolph Mark T. Lineberry and wife, Paula W. Lineberry DB 2151, P 309 Conservation Easement
Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DOT Stewardship Program.
Appendix C: Additional Data
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:image001.png
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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Verification of Buffer Rule application
Appendix B: DWR Correspondence
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 <[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail]
Appendix C: Additional Data
!1243CW_XS3
CW_XS4
CW_XS1
CW_XS2
5
9
4
1
2
6
7
3
8
10
11
12
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Sandy Creek Charles Williams 80 Closeout Map
550 0 550275 Feet
Legend
Transect
dissolved_EI_stations
contingency_GeoTaggedPhotosT
Stream_Enhancement
Stream Enhancement 1.5:1
XSections
CW_VegPlots_MY5
Wetland Enhancement
CW_Final_Buffer_Assetsdistance
50
100
200
WVSeasement
!crest_gauge_point
.
TextText
transect 1 = 4 stems total (161 stems/ac.)
transect 2 = 9 stems total (364 stems/ac.)
transect 3 = 6 stems (242 stems/ac)
transect 4 = 12 stems (485 stems/ac.)
Species included in totals consisted of:
green ash, persimmon, overcup oak,
sycamore, willow oak
Appendix C: Additional Data
Appendix C: Additional Data
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
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: Additional Data
Appendix C: Debit Ledger
Appendix C: Additional Data