20100099 Ver 3_BPDP Comments attachment_20130923

Katie Merritt - DWR Comments to Pancho Riparian Buffer & Nutrient Offset BPDP — September 23,
2013
• Section 1.0 — Include the summary of the BPBP Plan from page "i" into this section so that it is
contiguous with the rest of the BPDP
o When using the term "riparian buffer", or "riparian buffer credits" please describe them
as, "Neuse Riparian Buffer" & "Neuse riparian buffer credits" throughout the BPDP.
o 1.2-
0
.2—
■ 15t paragraph, last sentence: Were there areas on the site that would be
described as riparian "enhancement" in addition to the areas I saw for
"restoration"? If so, explain, because there is no other mention of riparian
enhancement or application of the 3:1 mitigation ratio in the BPDP. Maybe
enhancement was tied to the Stream/wetland bank??
■ Define riparian "corridor" orjust replace it with "riparian areas". Specifically
explain if this area includes both the Neuse Riparian Buffer and/or the extended
riparian areas which include the Nutrient Offset riparian areas. If so, the term
"riparian areas" will suffice. If you change "corridor" to "area", make that
change throughout the BPDP.
■ 4t" paragraph: "Prior to construction" activities... land was utilized for livestock
grazing"... Does this mean that RS installed fencing to keep the livestock out
after construction, since they were able to graze before construction? If so, I did
not see anything in the BPDP about the installation of fencing for cattle
exclusion. Correct if needed.
■ Add this statement to this section: "Staff from DWR visited the site in June 2013
and determined the site to be viable for riparian buffer and nutrient offset
mitigation".
• Section 2.3 — Add "Table 5" from the As -Built Report to this section (see page 6). Since the BPDP
is an entirely separate document from the AsBuilt Report, they will be reviewed as individual
submittals.
■ Add this statement: "Staff from DWR confirmed that this site was suitable for
riparian restoration throughout."
I do not recall approving any section of this site as suitable for riparian
"enhancement". Please let me know if this is different from your notes during
our onsite visit.
• Section 2.5 — Did you check the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database to ensure
there were no dwellings that fell under the "National Register of Historic Places" on your site? If
so, please provide that information here. Also, did you check the SHPO database
Archaeologicial Section to confirm that no documented archaeological sites were found on the
site? If so, provide that information here as well. If none of the searches were performed
above, do a search and submit your findings in the revised BPDP. Also, state whether or not
your mitigation site will have any negative impact.
Page 1 of 6

• Section 3.0 — correct riparian "corridor" throughout as requested in Section 1.0.
o If fencing had to be installed, please provide that information to this section where you
feel it is necessary
o Please provide a statement, just for clarity, that the planting plan, along with the
planted species chosen for this site was preapproved by the IRT as part of the Pancho
Stream & Wetland Mitigation. (my approval of your BPDP is just an "agreement" that
DWR agrees to the same planting plan and plant list as provided for the Stream &
Wetland Bank. It just needs to be clear, since the site is already planted, that the plant
list was approved by the IRT.
The IRT does include staff from DWR, but that staff is for the Stream & Wetland
Mitigation Programs, which is in conjunction with a federal rule. The buffer and nutrient
programs are state rules, and there isn't a member representing those programs on the
IRT (as of now).
o 3.1—
•
.1—
■ add "Table 6" from the As Built report to this section (see page 5)
■ remove the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph since the ASBuilt report is going
to be considered a separate/individual document, rather than part of the BPDP.
• Section 4.0 —
0 4.1—Add that "monitoring will occur between late August —October of each year, with
the 15Y monitoring data to be collected in Fall 2013 but not within 5 months from initial
planting"
■ Provide how many monitoring plots will be provided
0 4.2—
.
if RS installed a fence, there may be fence maintenance in the future
■ Give an example of what you mean by "mechanical methods" and provide an
example of "chemical methods". We want to make sure it's not violating the
easement and that the chemicals are safe for water quality. Details are helpful
0 4.3 — you state that the NCWNF will be the long term holder. If you are unsure of this,
state "expected to be". The easement holder at this time, is RS, not NCWNF.
■ explain that the conservation easement was approved by members of the IRT
for compliance with the Pancho Stream & Wetland Mitigation Banking
Instrument so that it's clear that DWR, me, did not approve it for compliance
with the UMBI. Usually the USACE and I work together on easements where
both DWR and the USACE need access and enforcement rights. With this one, it
didn't happen that way, because the Stream & Wetland Bank came first.
Otherwise, the easement would have provided DWR's information, the BPDP,
the UMBI, dates, etc.
• Section 5.0 — RS is held to the financial assurance requirements per their DWR UMBI, not what
was approved via the MBI with the IRT. Those are separate program areas and the USACE is the
Page 2 of 6

beneficiary of those assurances, while the DWR is not. Provide corrections where necessary or
copy and paste from your UMBI; Item D of Section III.
• Section 6.0—The nitrogen nutrient abatement of restored riparian area is not identified in a
rule, but rather through an approved methodology by DWR. Correct the 2nd sentence to read as
follows: "The DWR has determined the nitrogen nutrient abatement of restored riparian area to
be 2,273.02 lbs per acre".
o riparian "corridor" — same as comment above for Section 1.2
0 2nd paragraph, is' sentence & Credit Determination Table, and all figures that are
applicable: Correct the lbs/acre from 2249 to 2273.02 and adjust your total credits
accordingly throughout the BPDP.
o Delete the entire second paragraph after the first sentence: "Restored riparian corridor
within 50 feet, measured horizontally..."
Replace with :
"Restoration of the Neuse Riparian Buffer will generate 3.50 acres (152,460 ft2) of Neuse
riparian buffer credits. The mitigation provided in the Neuse riparian buffer can be used for
either Neuse riparian buffer credits or Nutrient Offset credits, but not both. RS must request and
receive approval of the transfer of any mitigation credits from DWR. All mitigation credit assets
shall be shown on the credit ledgers".
o Replace Table 3 with Table 1 provided in the AsBuilt Report w/ the recommended edits
(see page 4).
• Update Table of Contents accordingly (if applicable to the changes you made)
• Figure 1 Service Area: Please a map that shows both the service areas for your bank. The buffer
mitigation credit service area is the Neuse River Basin, whereas the service area for the Nutrient
Offset credits is only in 03020201 of the Neuse.
• Figure 4a & 4b — change the titles to be " Po sV Coin su ruud coin Credit Determination" (correct
Ibs/acre)
Page 3 of 6

"". .....
� able 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Pancho,"aBank Parcel
. ,(...w) � " 6, O
11
Mitigation Credits
Nutrient Offset (Nitrogen only)
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
11.34
1 --
Projects Components
Existing
Acreage
Restoration/
Restoration
EE unva'M t
Restoration
Acreage
Mitigation
oµR�atio^�
Comment
11.34
Restoration
I : 1"
11.34
mJ� y"
,2,vIbs / acre
Cessation , of current land use practices,
removing invasive species, and planting with
native forest vegetation.
Component Summation
Restoration Level Nutrient Offset
Restoration 11.34 acres x'25 5 &06- bs,
Totals 11.34 acres c "15,503.66>s.
Ne, Riparian Buffer
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
3.5
--
Projects Components
Existing
Acreage
Restoration/
E P�iva`I„+� t Restoration
Restoration
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratite
Comment
3.5
”" " v gttCessation
RestoragOil
3.5
43,560 sq. ft. /
acre
of current land use practices,
removing invasive species, and planting with
native forest vegetation.
Component Summation
Restoration Level Riparian Buffer aaea r °'" 1t
Restoration 3.5 acres = 152,460
Totals 3.5 acres = 1.52,460
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Pancho Ban Parcel
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Completion or Delivery
RS Neuse UMB1
NA
March 2008
BPDl
NA
September 2013
Conservation Easenf nt
NA
April 2012
Constiluction ,%"
NA
April 2013
Bare RqPiPlanting
NA
March 2013
As -,'Built" Baseline Monitoring Document
July 2013
September 2013
Pancho Bank Parcel Appendix A: General Figures and Tables
Drall As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Report -- September 2013

44
M
F�
C)
0
0
0
0
c
0
C:)
V')
C>
C>
C:)
C)
00
x
oc
x
0
t,-
r)
,i
-4
4
c4
00
oll
�
00
O
kn
0
C:)
C)
CD
CD
0
C)
C)
0
C>
C>
kn
00
CD
00
V')
00
o
C)
0
rn
C)
O
0
O
C)
00
r-
M
O
0
M
0
w
C>
CD
<=
CD
C)
in
00
za
0
0
Iz-
0
ZZ
06
Q
Z
m
CL,
C,
15
w
0
h
o
oon0
0
0
't
cd
m
Q
o
0
>
cli
=
zo
3
as
a
w
CA
C'n
M

Table 5: Reference Forest Ecosystem
Pancho Bank Parcel
On Site Observations + Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest & Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
Canopy Species
Understory Species
Red ma le Acer rubrum
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
River birch Betula ni ra)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Pecan Caro illinoinensis)
Ironwood (Car pinus caroliniana)
American beech Fa us grands blia
Coastal sweet e erbush (Clethra alnifolia)
American holly Ilex o aca)
Dogwood (Cornus orida)
Sweet um (Li uidambar st raci ua)
Sourwood (Dios gyros vir iniana
Tulip poplar (Liriodendrum tuff i era)
American holly (Ilex opaca)
Black gum (Nyssa bWora)
Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica)
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
Sweetgum (Liguidambar styracua)
Swamp chestnut oak cercus michauxii
Tulip poplar Liriodendrum tuli i era
Chem bark oak(Quercus pagoda)
Common sweetleaf S m plocos tinctoria
Willow oak uercus phellos
Winged elm Ulmus alata
Winged elm Ulmits alata
Hi hbush blueberry Vaccinium cog mhosum
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Pancho Bank Parcel Appendix A: General Figures and Tables
Draft As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Report — September 2013