The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBPDP Review - Foy FarmFrom: Merritt, Katie To: Baker. Caroline D Subject: FW: BPDP Review - Foy Farm Date: Friday, February 24, 2023 4:06:44 PM Attachments: Foy Farm BPDP CommentSummarv.odf Please file thread below with attached document as 1 pdf. From: Merritt, Katie Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 4:22 PM To: Raymond Holz <rholz@restorationsystems.com> Cc: Barrett Jenkins<bjenkins@restorationsystems.com> Subject: BPDP Review - Foy Farm Hey Raymond, Pursuant to Titles 15A NCAC 02B .0295 and 15A NCAC 02B .0703 (e), a provider shall submit a project plan proposal to the Division for review and approval that includes specific elements of the project. On August 2, 2022, Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) submitted a Bank Parcel Development Package (Plan) for the Foy Farm Site, to the Division, for review and approval. According to the initial review by DWR staff of the subject Plan, some elements were either not provided, not explained thoroughly, not accurate or lacking in sufficient information. Therefore, until DWR receives an updated Plan addressing all comments and edits provided in the attached 1) comment summary and 2) PDF version of the document itself, DWR cannot finalize the review of the Plan or issue an approval of the Plan. In an effort to be as efficient as possible at providing comments to RS during this busy time, I have provided my comments in a different format. Attached are the comments & edits provided within the actual PDF of a condensed Plan (without Appendices) as well as a comment summary. When RS is ready to submit their final project Plan, please include a summary of all RS' responses to the DWR comments acknowledging how RS addressed the comments. Please upload the final Plan using our Mitigation Project Information Upload Form through this link: https://edocs.deQ.nc.gov/Forms/Mitigation_ Information_ Upload . Please note the DWR ID#2020- 1366 (version 2) on all electronic submissions for this project. Thank you for your patience during this time and if you have any difficulty reading though the comments or edits please let me know. Katie Katie Merritt Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Office: 919-707-3637 Work Cell: 919-500-0683 Website: https://deQ.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-Quality permitting/401-buffer- permitting-branch 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleiah. NC 27699-1617 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. ID#* 20201366 Version* 2 Select Reviewer: Katie Merritt Initial Review Completed Date 08/03/2022 Mitigation Project Submittal - 81212022 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Type of Mitigation Project: * Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information CompanytOwner: * Restoration Systems LLC Contact Name: * Barrett Jenkins Project Information Project Type: ❑MS Mitigation Bank Project Name: Foy Farm County: Jones Document Information Yes No Email Address: * bienki ns@restorationsystems.coln Mitigation Document Type: Mitigation Plans File Upload: Restoration Systems - Foy Farm - DRAFT BPDP - 20.67M8 2022-08-01 _. pdf Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted... Signature Print Name: * Raymond J Holz Signature: * Summary of Comments on Foy Farm BPDP_DWR Review.pdf Page: 2 Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:20:43 PM use project ID# 2020-1366v2 Page: 5 Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 1/10/2023 3:21:11 PM QNumber: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:22:03 PM reference UBI herein out. Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 1/10/2023 3:21:41 PM proposed Number: 4 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 1/10/2023 3:21:17 PM Umbrella Number: 5 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 1/10/2023 3:24:46 PM in accordance with the buffer mitigation rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n) Number: 6 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:27:28 PM west of what town? Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:26:50 PM photos need to be current, timestamped, and show site conditions at time of BPDP submittal. photos from 2021, even though they may represent site conditions, do not give the visual DWR needs in the Plans to confirm current site conditions. wNumber: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:28:36 PM these planting dates may not be achieved. Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:30:19 PM Are the maintenance easements along existing pond dams? are they intended to be proposed as "internal easement breaks? explain QNumber: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:32:23 PM how wide is the utility easement? How what is meant by "Maintenance"? Provide details as to what is anticipated to be considered as "Maintenance" within these areas. Also, how is RS planning to call these maintenance areas out in the Easement document? Page: 10 *Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:33:17 PM why would deductions not be necessary on feature 3? explain gINumber: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:37:20 PM the expectation, is that RS will make sure the stems are well mixed in the bags BEFORE they are planted by the crews. The way this is worded doesn't meet that expectation. reword the sentence to acknowledge this expectation Commit to ensuring that stem species will be well mixed before planting to ensure diversity of bare roots across the planted area. gbNumber: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:35:14 PM add more details here: how many streams? how many lateral ditches? add notes that the ditches are hydrologically connected to streams within project area, add the min and max riparian widths, etc. vo Number: 4 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:36:13 PM it appears RS is actually planting more than 4....what is RS' minimum? Rule says 4, but what is your anticipated minimum of species to be planted? Page: 11 QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:38:14 PM If 14 species of trees are shown in the table, DWR expects 14 species to be planted. If anticipating to plant less than 14 species, you need to at least indicate the minimum # of species RS will plant. RS indicated only a minimum of 4 species ... if that is true, DWR cannot confirm the "% of Total Planted Tree" column would comply with the performance standard "no one tree species will be greater than 50%". Additionally, with the minimum proposal of 4, RS is at risk for not meeting the performance standard for stem diversity if less than 4 species end up in plots or fail to thrive/survive. The standard in rule is 4, but hopefully RS is intending to plant more based on the comment above. However, at this time, the column on '% of total planted trees", which is required to include in this plan, is not accurate unless RS truly plants 14 species (all adding up to be 100%). Adjust the table accordingly and only show the number of species RS truly intends to plant. gbNumber: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:38:46 PM DWR can no longer accept this note below the planting table. It has created a big issue when DWR has been lenient on the details of the Planting proposal in BPDPs. RS will be required to follow the planting list in Table 7. If any changes are needed to the planting list before planting, RS will need to submit a request to DWR for approval of that modified planting list. DWR will accept a FEW substitutions if RS wants to include those few potential substitutions in a Table 7b...but you must include the % those subs are intended to be utilized in the case you need those substitutions. wNumber: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:39:57 PM the substitution list you proposed includes shrubs, but the performance standards RS chose for this site only account for the Trees. Explain. Page: 12 Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:41:50 PM Figure 7 shows 40 but states there are 29, explain and correct the discrepancy. Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:42:56 PM the 2% is taken from the Total Planted Area, not the "Total restoration credit generating area". the total planted area is shown in Figure 6 and represented in Table 8 as 2,090,440 ft2 please correct statement accordingly. gbNumber: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:43:57 PM to be able to determine if the Health of stems is sufficient (0295)(2)(E), Vigor should also be included. *Number:4 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:45:58 PM since this is only a Nutrient offset bank, we won't be including "mitigation" in the title Number: 5 Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 1/10/2023 3:45:37 PM Number: 6 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:45:16 PM should include "Maintenance Areas" in this section too. See previous comment on Maintenance areas. Page: 13 Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:44:40 PM add language from the UMBI that commits the Provider to notifying DWR within 30 calendar days from the completion of the activities. Within 30 calendar days after completing the establishment of the buffer mitigation and nutrient offset areas, the Sponsor will submit written notification to DWR documenting that all nutrient offset activities have been completed. Failure to submit written notification within 30 days may result in a modified credit release schedule or a delay in the issuance of credit releases. Notification shall include all the items as specified in the UBI Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:46:53 PM there are a few references that cite this project as "Foy Farm A". Remove "A" from the references throughout the report since this doesn't seem to apply., Page: 14 Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:49:17 PM add that these non credit areas also include areas described as being maintenance areas, and that also being the reason there will be no credits generated within that footprint. QNumber: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:48:02 PM update Banking Instrument name throughout the report as comments have suggested. Page: 15 gpNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:48:17 PM update project number r�Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:50:41 PM Figure 6 & Figure 7 do not show Feature 3 labeled. Update figures accordingly Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:50:10 PM the pond above Ditch 1 b is noted in the viability letter as not being viable for credit. explain why it has been included as a creditable feature. gbNumber: 4 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:51:15 PM non -diffused flow may have to be added for feature 3 depending on RS responses to comments on Feature 3 ditch Page: 17 *Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:51:47 PM i do not know what group this is. Correct All Figures to say "401 & Buffer Permitting Branch" Page: 19 Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:53:02 PM for the green dots, only show the origins of I/P features. remove all other pins. apply this edit to other figures Page: 22 Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:55:52 PM this maintenance area looks like it will be located within teh footprint of a stream. how will RS ensure that the maintenance performed in these maintenance areas do not cause stream impacts? qP Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:53:23 PM label feature 3 qP Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:54:36 PM add (non-credit area) to this label since these areas are not receiving any credit Page: 23 *Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:57:46 PM this box has incorrect information. the total area that the 2% is pulled from comes from the total planted area, not the total creditable area. correct this box where appropriate. *Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:58:02 PM remove this area from creditable area. *Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:59:25 PM change restoration to "riparian restoration for nutrient offset credit" on all figures *Number: 4 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:58:54 PM vegetation and credit is spelled incorrectly. Page: 24 QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 4:00:12 PM see previous comments and edit accordingly. r�Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 3:59:49 PM do not need two plots in this area now, see previous comments about this area Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 4:03:27 PM RS should be proposing straighter easement lines (as noted to be an issue on other sites proposed by RS). The ability to go out to 200' from TOB should provide all providers the ability to make straighter easement lines, thus reducing the risk of encroachments during monitoring. This is not required for RS to change, but RS should consider the risk associated with curvy easements and make changes to the easement boundary to reduce those risks. Page: 25 QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 4:00:52 PM see previous comments and edit accordingly. Page: 26 Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2023 4:01:06 PM see previous comments and edit accordingly.