Ballance Farm Closeout Report_final_6-11-2015

NC DMS Closeout Report
June 11, 2015
Project Name Ballance Farm Buffer Restoration Project
Project ID 92224
Project Type Buffer or NO R and E
Basin Neuse
14 digit CU 03020203060020
County Wayne
Applicable Buffer Rule Neuse Buffer Rule (Grandfathered Site) and Temporary Buffer
Rule
Date Planted Feb 2006
Date of Supplemental Plant Mar 2009, Mar 2015 (61— 3 gallon trees)
Protection mechanism Easement
Easement Acreage 56.1
Stewards DENR
Encroachments & Resolution Yes — talked with landowner, repaired fence replanted area
Accepted for transfer to stewardship Yes

rardfathered S apt at 1:1 ratio Notes
Asset -�ab� b1e fOr restorat�o Mitigation
ce Farm► Creem Mpg ate el solier width Units
,,%,V% to 20D feet frO Resulting Credit ratio
buffer Widths ugu er Mid oat�on M,gs tion 0 �p4 °I°
guf{er Credit Ra U
s
gufferwidth Restoration° 2,06p'388
an�en'en _2 ° 8,596
m-iU8 Asa' fr�l p�e5ervation - 0 60'388 1ppp °lo 2,238'08 4
ensured fro 2,0 1 23gg8
Minear feet) R 1�8'Sg6 514 ao
2,p6p'388 E
357 ,1g2
0.2p0
0.280
TOtal it�gat�On units
10 m

Access Easements (0.54 total acres) '
Conservation Easement (56.1 acres)
Streams
Buffer Restoration (47.3 acres), 1:1 Credit Ratio (47.3 Credits)
Buffer Enhancement (8.2 ac r es), 2:1 Credit Ratio ( 4.1 Credits ) '' ti • `' .�"i
r
Ilk-
IL
i
_
j+ {j f 4 � 1• %: � - � � • -i , ;., i- - -- �-Y C' "- •.�.. Sl, -l�� «� ►L�- #�., � , i ��. � ���-�/r3L' Y � �. s �/i i � �i
' r• �,F .. �. i yh r. � t .1�.. � � �. � i:�; f t tf'.' � Fi. � �t �f � ��' ! '�- 1'i;!�� �• � .'} � 1 ' �'.'•
_ ' i i t �� +4 1'f 'J :. t.7- - -sr �•r ♦t. ,ir:! ��„ r':
4,
A �� -` •►'.
Aw
Va
�.
PI
y!• •� t °`.� i hMir�� • A � �, ! � , I ra..• i d" 'S�'� � ��f1• �1 �'� -i , ♦ T�. �� ♦' r' � ,�•� �/-��• ` �' - ��
-,r •� . - • i• 1 r i x�.t w r - r t r - ' ti r . vt Jti 1.' ! r . +: n �r' �,[ , r i •�'. !� � ��`t J. • ;� `y Al i ` Y.�t' y, -} � f 4.i 1 ti's r -� �
WN
ti s 1� + S r•' r . .Y .r f•S �- ,' •4 � h�T. ', � t•t_ J �'� :•'r►'�.r•��° •,�-' F.��ti:J .�.1. ^t, t� t i�. � •s
0 125 250 500 750 1,000 Riparian Buffer Asset Map Michael
"'� Feet Ballance Farm Buffer Mitigation Site I N T E R N A T I O N A L

Ballance Farm Vegetation Data:
Table 4,
Dpnt tvy of N'eagetation Plots
Plot
Counted Stems per Plot
;Means per Asre (extrapointed')
\o.
Initial
Yea
Year
Year
Yeaar
Year
Initial
Year
Year
Year
Yea i
Year
1
,
3
�
4
1
2
3
4-
5
1
13
13
1.3
13
13
13
526
596
526
596
526
526
15
15
14
15
15
640
607
607
567
607
607
3
15
11
11
11
11
11
600
445
445
445
44S
445
4
13
10
7
5
10
11
520
405
233
202
405
445
5
16
16
15
155
15
15
640
647
607
607
607
607
6
11
10
10
9
9
S
440
405
445
364
364
324
Total
S4
"5
'1
6"
S61
406
474
452%
492
492
* For Year 4, counts ai i plot 42 were higher than in Year 3 because tree 7 in plot --2 was not found during Yem
3. Plot :�4 stems increased due to supplemental plantings that were added during March 2009-

Appendix A: Project Correspondence

A.VA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coieen H. Sullins
Governor Director
May 26, 2009
TO: Suzanne Klimek — NCEEP
Jeff Jurek - NCEEP
FROM: Cyndi Karoly - 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
RE: Buffer Mitigation Site Evaluations
Balance Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration Site — Wayne County (Meuse 03)
DWQ # 2003 -0045
Site Visit: 4/20/09 JRD
Contact Person: John Dorsey
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Balance Farm Riparian Restoration Site (NCEEP Full Delivery site) includes buffer restoration along unnamed
tributaries of Nahunta Swamp and along Nahunta Swamp itself. According to the monitoring report, 56 acres of buffer
mitigation is available on the site. Buffer width was greater than 50 feet in the reports. Staff present include Shelton
Sullivan, Matt Matthews, Amy Chapman, Tammy Hill, John Dorsey, Kyle Barnes, Anthony Scarbraugh and Chris Pullinger
and Eric Kulz from DWQ as well as, Guy Pearce, and Tim Baumgartner from EEP as well as Jeff Becker from Greene
Environmental and Kevin Tweedy from Baker Engineering.
This site is in its third year of monitoring and the monitoring reports all state that vegetation criteria are being met across the
entire site. In most cases, trees seem to be growing well throughout the site.
In places, there is existing mature buffer along Nahunta Swamp (44 feet wide in one place and 72 feet wide in another place).
This area needs to be determined and subtracted from the ledger for the site. A buffer "enhancement" area is located across a
conveyance (UT 5) that drains the hog houses. There is no sign of past grazing impact here, the site is dominated by mature
forest and there is no sign of tree planting. This area is listed as nutrient offset credit and must be removed from the ledger.
In addition, there has been some mowing in the buffer along UT 5 which must be stopped. Nutrient offset credit is also listed
for UT 6 but the west side of this buffer conveyance has a side ditch which bypasses the planted buffer. The area draining to
this ditch must be removed from the ledger for the site. There is no planted buffer adjacent to UT 8 since there is a dirt
packed road that runs parallel to the ditch. This area must be removed from the nutrient offset ledger since it is not vegetated,
At the lower end of UT 8, there is a wide section with very few trees. This site will need to be replanted perhaps with species
that can tolerate the wet soils and the vegetation monitoring begun again. Although it is clear that Nahunta Swamp is subject
to the buffer rules, it is not clear whether any of the unnamed tributaries are subject to the rules. DWQ Regional Office staff
should be contacted to make official stream calls.
ITEMS TO ADDRESS:
Areas of mature buffer along Nahunts Swamp must be removed from the buffer ledger.
The buffer enhancement near UT 5 must be removed from the nutrient offset and buffer ledgers. The area
that is being mowed along UT 5 must be allowed to revegetate and the cause for the mowing
determined and eliminated.
The area that drains to the side ditch along UT 6 must be removed from the nutrient offset ledger since it
drains directly to a conveyance.
The unplanted area adjacent to UT 8 with the dirt road must be removed from the nutrient offset and buffer
ledgers.
At the lower end of UT 8, replanting must be conducted and vegetation monitoring begun again since this
area has very sparse vegetation.
DWQ Regional Staff should be contacted to make stream calls on all tributaries which EEP believes may be
modified natural streams.
cc: Matt Matthews
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: 919 - 733 -6893
Internet: hnp:// h2c.enr.state.nc.us /navetlands/
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NonehCarolina
)lltllPally

November 3, 2010
Mr. Guy Pearce
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd., Suite 111103
Raleigh, NC 27604
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
919 - 463 -5488
FAX 919 - 463 -5490
Subject: Update on Full Delivery Site Status and Request for Payment
Ballance Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration Site — Full Delivery Project
Wayne County — Neuse River Basin — CU #03020203; Contract No. D05020 -2
Dear Mr. Pearce,
As you are aware, we have been working over the past months to resolve issues that we summarized in our
letter to EEP last year on October 28, 2009 (attached as Exhibit A). We have had numerous discussions with
DWQ and believe we have finally reached a point where we are comfortable about the upcoming close -out of
the project. Below is a summary of the timeline and actions that have occurred since our letter to you last
October:
• June 5, 2009 — Baker receives letter from EEP and DWQ with questions and issues related to a
project site visit on April 20, 2009.
• October 28, 2009 — letter from Baker to EEP listing issues with the site and proposed actions.
• April 2010 — Farm road on the east side of the site was relocated out of the buffer to the extent
possible.
• May 2010 -- Four -year old containerized trees were planted in areas of the site that have had
survivability issues (approximately 3.5 acres planted).
• May 2010 — Baker begins discussions with DWQ to resolve credit questions about wooded
areas of proposed buffer.
• October 2010 — Baker receives approval from DWQ for 2:1 credit allowance for wooded
areas.
The information below provides detailed information on how each issue in our original letter to EEP on
October 19, 2009 will be addressed on the site.
1) Areas alone Nahunta Swam) canal and drainage ditches that currently have mature trees do not aualifv
for restoration credit. Baker has provided an in- depth analysis to DWQ of the benefits of cattle
exclusion from wooded riparian buffers. This information was provided to DWQ in a letter dated
October 19, 2010 (attached as Exhibit B). In an email response received from DWQ on October 28,
2010 (attached as Exhibit C), DWQ agreed to support a credit ratio of 2:1 for wooded riparian buffer
areas of the site that have had cattle excluded from them. This issue will be formally voted on by the
EMC in its January meeting, along with new guidelines from DWQ that will provide the 2 :1 credit for
cattle exclusion on future projects that have wooded buffers.
This ruling applies to 8.2 acres of wooded buffer that was originally proposed at a 1:1 credit ratio.
Therefore, this area will now develop 4.1 WMUs for the project.
2) Please confirm that all nnowing/cutting of vegetation is outside the conservation easement area and
will not affect anv buffered areas. As noted in our October 28, 2009 letter, the fencing around the
buffer project was installed approximately 25 feet outside of the conservation easement. This was

done to allow room for the landowner to mow on both sides of his electric fences for maintenance.
The landowner is currently maintaining a mowed swath approximately 10 —15 feet wide on the inside
of the fences, thereby avoiding cutting within the easement area.
In the summer of 2009, we noted several areas on the project (equating to less than 0.5 acre in total)
where one of the landowner's farm workers accidentally mowed around the perimeter of one of the
buffer areas, inside the conservation easement. This was done during the early fall of 2009. We have
discussed this situation with the landowner and they have assured us that this will not continue in the
future. These areas were replanted in May 2010.
3) Areas of poor vegetation survival with buffer restoration areas (this issue was not discussed in the June
5. 2009 letter from NC>✓EK Several pockets of poor tree survivability have been noted in the past
monitoring reports for the site. These areas equate to approximately 3.5 acres in total, and have been
replanted at least twice to attempt to improve the stein counts. We believe the survivability issues are
due to dense herbaceous vegetation, and potentially in part to saturated conditions for extended
periods. During May 2010, these areas were replanted with 4 -year old containerized trees to give the
areas the best chance for improved survivability. At the writing of this letter, tree counts have not
been performed for 2010, but we anticipate that survivability in these areas has been improved to
acceptable levels.
4) Farm road relocation (this issue was not discussed in the June 5. 2009 letter from NCEEP). We have
relocated the road on the eastern side of the farm that previously ran along UT8 within the riparian
buffer (see Exhibit D). The section of road on the northern side of the project that we originally
proposed to also relocate will be left in its current location, due to landowner concerns and costs
associated. We assume that the area of buffer to the north of the road (0.5 acre) will not be accepted
for buffer credit and are removing this area from the credit calculations.
5) Revised credit calculations. Based on the information provided above, we have revised the expected
credit calculations as follows. The areas listed below are indicated on the map in Exhibit D:
Original easement acreage for credit (BWs) = 56.3
Deduct 4.1 credits for converting wooded areas from 1:1 credit to 2:1 (8.2 acres)
Deduct 0.5 credits for corner of easement cut -off by northern road
Total BMUs remaining = 51.7
Based on these revised calculations, the site should develop 51.7 BMUs, exceeding our required contract
amount of 50 BMUs. This total also provides some allowance for additional deductions (up to 1.7 acres) that
may be assessed by DWQ at the project closeout.
Based on this information, we request that EEP release the payment that has been held for Year 4 monitoring,
as the project is back on course to fulfill the contract requirements.
If you have any questions or require further information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
�eviu Twe y, PE
Project Engineer - Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
2

EXHIBIT A I
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
<£ 8000 Regency Parkway
, W
_ Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
919 - 463 -5488
FAX 919 - 463 -5490
October 28, 2009
Mr. Guy Pearce
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd., Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Response to NCEEP and NCDWQ Comments in Letter from NCEEP Dated June 5, 2009
Ballance Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration Site — Full Delivery Project
Wayne County — Nease River Basin — CU #03020203
Contract No. D05020 -2
Dear Mr. Pearce,
The following information is provided in response to comments received from NCEEP and NCDWQ after a
site visit of the Ballance Farm Project that was conducted on April 20, 2009. The following discussion is
numbered in terms of the items presented in the June 5, 2009 comment letter.
1) Areas alone Nahunta Swamp canal and drainage ditches that currently have mature trees do not aualifv
for restoration credit. Upon further review of the areas adjacent to Nahunta canal, we agree that these
wooded areas (approximately 4.5 acres) do not meet the current regulatory guidance for buffer
restoration credit. However, we propose that these areas, and other areas of the site that were
originally proposed for enhancement credit, are appropriate for buffer mitigation under the new
Flexible Buffer Mitigation Guidelines that have been proposed by NCDWQ. The Flexible Buffer
Mitigation Guidance states that the "basic premise for flexible buffer mitigation is that it must reduce
nutrient loading as well or better than the riparian buffer that is lost. The Division of Water Quality
generally requires that riparian buffers reduce 30% total nitrogen from stornnvater runoff." These
areas that we are proposing for flexible buffer mitigation credit contain mature trees, however, cattle
which once had complete access to Nahunta canal and the tributary channels and ditches have been
completely excluded from these areas. Furthermore, swine lagoon waste water that was once land
applied to these areas is no longer applied as a result of the project and the protection of these areas
with a conservation easement.
Literature is available documenting that cattle exclusion from riparian buffers and streams typically
results in a 30% reduction in TN, and a 75% reduction in TP. The second reference below was a study
that was conducted in North Carolina.
"Research has shown that sonne ofthe existing conservation practices can signrfrcantlp reduce
NPS N and P contmninatior of snnrface waters. Most notable annong these practices are those
that fnoction to considerabl}, reduce both TN and TP losses, which are comer crops (50 %fin•
TN and TP), diverse cropping s)wenis (50 %for TN and TP), in -feld vegetali►�e buffers (25%
TN, 50% TP), livestock exclusion front stream and riparian areas (30% TN. 75% TP), and
riparian buffers (40% TA; 45% TP). [USDA -ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory. 2004.
Assessments of Practices to Reduce Nitrogen and Phosphorus Nonpoint Source Pollution of
Iowa's Surface Waters]

"Livestock exclusion from streams has been (lemonsb-ate(I to reduce se(finent and possibl),
nutrient yield fr•o►n streams drainingpastures.... Analysis of 81 wk ofvre- wcle(sioru and 137
w1c ofnost- exclusion fencine data (locunreuted 33. 78. 76. and 82% reductions in weel(h)
nihwte+nitrite. total Kieldahl nitronen MCN). total nhosrMorous (M. and sediment loads,
respectivel ); front the 14.9 -Ira pasture area adjacent to the fenced section ofstream. " [D. E.
Line, et al. 1999. Nonpoint- Source Pollutant Load Reductions Associated with Livestock
Exclusion]
Since literature is available that documents typical N removal efficiencies for cattle exclusion that
meet NCDWQ's Flexible Buffer Mitigation Guidelines, we propose that wooded areas of the project
that have been protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement, and that have had cattle
permanently excluded where they once had complete access to tributaries and streams, be allocated a
1:1 mitigation credit. This equates to approximately 4.5 acres of wooded area along Nahunta canal
that was originally designated as buffer restoration, and an additional 4 acres of wooded buffer that
was originally designated as buffer enhancement.
2) Please confirm that all mowine/cuttine of veeetation is outside the conservation easement area and
will not affect anv buffered areas. The fencing around the buffer project was installed approximately
25 feet outside of the conservation easement. This was done to allow room for the landowner to mow
on both sides of his electric fences for maintenance. The landowner is currently maintaining a mowed
swath approximately 10 — 15 feet wide on the inside of the fences, thereby avoiding cutting within the
easement area.
We have noted several areas on the project (equating to less than 0.5 acre in total) where one the
landowner's farm workers accidentally mowed around the perimeter of one of the buffer areas, inside
the conservation easement. This was done during the early fall of 2009. We have discussed this
situation with the landowner and they have assured us that this will not continue in the future. We
plan to replant these areas in the fall/winter or 2009/2010. We also plan to install signage along the
perimeter of the easement, especially at possible access points, that will post the conservation
easement as a protected "no mow" area.
3) Areas of Door veeetation survival with buffer restoration areas (this issue was not discussed in the June
5. 2009 letter from NCEEP). Several pockets of poor tree survivability have been noted in the past
monitoring reports for the site. These areas equate to approximately 3.5 acres in total, and have been
replanted at least twice to attempt to improve the stem counts. We believe the survivability issues are
due to dense herbaceous vegetation, and potentially in part to saturated conditions for extended
periods. During the fall /winter of 2009/2010, we proposed to replant these areas using larger, pot
grown trees that are at least 2 to 3 years of age. These trees will be planted in the problem areas at a
density of approximately 300 stems per acre. The larger trees will hopefiilly better endure the dense
herbaceous competition and wetter conditions.
4) Farm road relocation (this issue was not discussed in the June 5. 2009 letter from NCEEP). We have
noted in our site reviews that the project would be greatly benefited by relocating two farm roads that
cross the buffer areas. We are proposing to the landowner that one road be relocated outside the
easement area entirely, while the second be relocated away from a buffered tributary to better protect
the stream and buffer. We plan to work with the landowner on this issue during the coming fall and
winter. Areas of road that are removed and relocated will be replanted during the corning winter.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss these issues further, or require more information.
Sincerely,
Kevin fi� eedy, P
Project Engin t M' icliael Baker Engineering, Inc.

I EXHIBIT B I
October 19, 2010
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601
Subject: Proposal for Mitigation Credit Calculations on the Ballance Farm Riparian Buffer
Restoration Project — Full Delivery Project
Wayne County, North Carolina — Neuse River Basin — CU #03020203
NCEEP Contract No. D05020 -2
Dear Mr. Dorney,
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) received written comments from the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), dated June 5, 2009, after a site visit of the Ballance Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration
Project (the Project) that was conducted on April 20, 2009. Among the comments was a concern
that areas along the Nahunta Swamp Canal and drainage ditches that currently have mature trees
do not qualify for restoration credit. Upon further review of the areas adjacent to Nahunta
Swamp Canal, Baker agrees that these wooded areas (approximately 9.5 acres) do not meet the
current regulatory guidance for buffer restoration credit, defined as re- establishing a wooded
buffer to an area that does not contain woody vegetation. However, Baker's position is that these
project areas are providing a significant water quality benefit and should be allowed for
mitigation credit under the new Flexible Buffer Mitigation Rules being developed by DWQ. The
discussion that follows will provide Baker's opinion of the water quality benefits gained by the
project (in terms of the areas that were wooded prior to the project) and will support that opinion
with research and data gathered from other studies that have been performed under similar
circumstances.
The areas in question are wooded areas that support mature trees at the Project (see Exhibit A).
Although Baker agrees that the wooded areas do not meet the current regulatory guidance for
buffer restoration credit, we feel that livestock exclusion from these areas is providing significant
water quality benefits that are appropriate for mitigation credit. Prior to Baker's work, livestock
(cattle and pigs) had access to the Nahunta Swamp Canal and its tributary channels and ditches,
as attested to by the farm owner (see Exhibit B for letter from the property owner). These areas
were used by livestock in the past for shade, foraging, and watering. As a result of the Ballance
Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration Project, livestock are now completely excluded from these
areas which have been placed under a permanent conservation easement.

Past research by others has demonstrated that cattle grazing adjacent to streams can directly
contribute contaminants such as sediment, nutrients, and pathogens to the stream by fecal
deposition and cattle traffic, and indirectly by cattle traffic stirring up sediment, trampling
streambanks, and increasing bank erosion (Kauffman et al., 1983; Kauffman and Kruger, 1984;
Marlow et al., 1987; Trimble, 1994; Trimble and Mendel, 1995; Belsky et al., 1999; Bagshaw,
2002; Sarr, 2002; Chanasyk et al., 2010). Cooper et al. (1995) stated that the exclusion of cattle
from riparian zones may act like a riparian buffer, thereby reducing runoff and improving water
quality. Miller et al. (2010) concluded that the improved environmental quality of cattle -
excluded areas are the result of decreased runoff and greater infiltration due to greater vegetation
cover, more standing litter, decreased bare soil, and lower soil compaction. The areas in
question at the Project support mature stands of primarily deciduous trees. The leaves that these
trees drop every fall further increase the standing litter on the ground, reducing runoff and
increasing the previously noted water quality benefits.
Owens et al. (1996) stated that livestock exclusion from riparian areas reduced the sediment
yield from a beef cow pasture by up to 40 %, as documented over a 13 -year monitoring period.
In addition to sediment reduction, studies have shown that livestock exclusion results in
reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus loads and exports. James et al. (2007) have estimated that
excluding pastured cattle from streams has resulted in a 32% reduction of in- stream deposition of
fecal phosphorous in Cannonsville Watershed of southeastern New York. Jones and Knowlton
(1999) noted 52% reductions in downstream total phosphorus after dairy cows and calves were
fenced out of a stream. Byers et al. (2005) concluded that cattle - grazed pastures with un- fenced
streams contributed significant loads of nutrients and other pollutants during base flow, as well
as storm flow. Line et al. (1999) showed that an analysis of 81 weeks of pre - exclusion and 137
weeks of post - exclusion fencing data documented 33, 78, 76 and 82% reductions in weekly
nitrate +nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorous (TP) and sediment loads,
respectively, from a 14.9 hectare pasture in the piedmont of North Carolina.
Although the numerical amounts of reductions vary from study to study, all studies reviewed by
Baker conclude that excluding livestock from riparian areas will significantly reduce pollutant
loads, including sediment and nutrients. Further, the reductions are comparable to those
commonly accepted for the restoration of riparian buffers (average removal efficiency of 60 to
70% according to Mayer et al., 2007). Baker's position is that if livestock exclusion from
existing buffers provides a comparable level of water quality benefit as compared to buffer
restoration, then a comparably high mitigation value should be placed on livestock exclusion.
We also believe that in many cases, livestock exclusion from existing buffers would be far more
beneficial than buffer enhancement (typically assessed with a 3:1 mitigation ratio), because the
direct inputs of pollutants to the stream will always be removed with livestock exclusion.
Therefore, we propose that the wooded areas of the Project that have been protected in perpetuity
by a conservation easement, and that have had all livestock permanently excluded, be allocated a
2:1 mitigation credit. This equates to approximately 4.5 acres of wooded area along Nahunta

Swamp Canal that was originally designated as buffer restoration and an additional 4 acres of
wooded buffer that was originally designated as buffer enhancement (see Exhibit A). We feel
this ratio is justified for two primary reasons: 1) the areas in question already contain mature
buffer vegetation, and therefore do not qualify for buffer restoration (therefore, do not qualify for
1:1 credit), and 2) the water quality benefits documented from livestock exclusion greatly
surpass the expected benefits of typical buffer enhancement (therefore, a higher mitigation value
than 3:1 is warranted).
Please let us know your thoughts on this proposal, and we look forward to resolving this issue
with you as we proceed forward.
Sincerely,
Kevin Tweedy, Senior Engineer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

References
Bagshaw, C. 2002. Factors influencing direct deposition of cattle fecal material in riparian
zones. MAF Technical Paper 2002/19. Available at
httD: / /citeseerx.ist.Dsu.edu/viewdoe /download ?doi = 10.1.1.76.1426 &ren =rep 1 &tvpe =ndf
(verified 19 Feb. 2010).
Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and
riparian ecosystems in the western United States, J. Soil Water Conservation. 54:419-
431.
Byers, H.L., M.L. Cabrera, M.K. Matthews, D.H. Franklin, J.G. Andrae, D.E. Radcliffe, M.A.
McCann, H.A. Kuykendall, C.S. Hoveland, and V.H. Calvert Il. 2005. Phosphorus,
sediment and Escherichia coli loads in unfenced streams of the Georgia piedmont, U. S.A.
J. Environ. Qual. 34:2293 -2300.
Chanasyk, D.S., E. Mapfumo, and W. Willms. 2003. Quantification and simulation of surface
runoff from fescue grassland watersheds. Agric. Water Manage. 59:137 -153.
Cooper, A.B., C.M. Smith, and M.J. Smith. 1995. Effects of riparian set -aside on soil
characteristics in an agricultural landscape: Implications for nutrient transport and
retention. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 55:61 -67
Hunt, P.G., T.A. Matheny, and K.C. Stone. 2004. Denitrification in a coastal plain riparian zone
contiguous to a heavily loaded swine wastewater spray field. J. Environ. Qual. 33:2367-
2374.
Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts of cattle on streambanks in
northeastern Oregon. J. Range Manage. 36:683 -685.
Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside
management implications: A review. J. Range Manage. 34:430 -437.
James, E., P. Kleinman, T. Veith, R. Stedman, and A. Sharply. 2007. Phosphorous
contributions from pastured dairy cattle to streams of the Cannonsville Watershed, New
York. J. Soil and Water Conservation. 62(1):40 -47.
Jones, G. M., Knowlton, K. F., and B. Clark. Are There Alternatives to Fencing the Dairy Herd
Out of Streams? The Virginia Dairyman. August 1999, pp. 24 -26.
Line, D.E., W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings, E.J. Thompson, and D.L. Osmond. 2000. Nonpoint-
source pollutant load reductions associated with livestock exclusion. J. Environ. Qual.
29:1882 -1890.

Marlow, C.B., T.M. Pogacnik, and S. Quinsey. 1987. Streambank Stability and cattle grazing
in southwestern Montana. J. Soil and Water Conservation. 42:291 -296.
Mayer, P. S. Reynolds, Jr., M. McCutchen, and T. Canfield. 2007. Meta - Analysis of Nitrogen
Removal in Riparian Buffers. J. of Environmental Quality. 36:1172 -1180
Miller, J.J., D.S. Chanasyk, T. Curtis, and W.D.Willms. 2010. Influence of streambank fencing
on the environmental quality of cattle- excluded pastures. J. Environmental Quality,
39:991 -1000.
Owens, L.B., W.M. Edwards, and R.W. Van Keuren. 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured
watershed before and after stream fencing. J. Soil Water Conserv. 51:90 -94
Sarr, D.A. 2002. Riparian livestock exclosure research in the Western United States: A critique
and some recommendations. Environ. Manage. 30:516 -526.
Stone, K.C., P.G. Hunt, M.H. Johnson, and S.W. Coffey. 1998a. Gleams simulation of
groundwater nitrate -N from row crop and swine wastewater spray fields in the eastern
Coastal Plain. Trans. ASAE 41:51 -57
Stone, K.C., P.G. Hunt, F.J. Humenik, and M.H. Johnson. 1998b. Impact on swine waste
application on ground and stream water quality in an eastern Coastal Plain watershed.
Trans. ASAE 41:1665 -1670.
Trimble, S.W. 1994. Erosional effects of cattle on streambanks in Tennessee, U.S.A. Earth
Surf. Processes 19:451 -464.
Trimble, S.W., and A.C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as geomorphic agent: A critical review.
Geomorphology 13:233 -253.
USDA -ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory. 2004. Assessments of Practices to Reduce Nitrogen
and Phosphorus Nonpoint Source Pollution of Iowa's Surface Waters

I EXHIBIT C I
Tweedy, Kevin
From:
Kulz, Eric [eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov]
Sent:
Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:14 AM
To:
Tweedy, Kevin; Domey, John
Cc:
John Preyer
Subject:
RE: status of buffer credit for grazed areas
Kevin:
We have reviewed the information you provided and discussed this issue internally, and agree that areas with forest
canopy that have historically been grazed can be fenced (buffer; at least 50 feet as measured from the top of bank, of
course), supplemental planting can be done if warranted, and these areas can generate buffer credit at a 2:1 ratio. The
consolidated buffer mitigation rule will be edited to reflect this change.
John has informed me that the agenda for the November EMC WQC meeting is full (including presentation of the
consolidated buffer mitigation rule). This issue will be included on the January agenda.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Eric
From: Tweedy, Kevin [mailto:Ktweedy @mbakercorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:46 AM
To: Dorney, John
Cc: Kulz, Eric; John Preyer
Subject: RE: status of buffer credit for grazed areas
John-
In response to our phone conversation last Friday, please see attached letter with revisions to our proposal for the
Balance Farm Buffer Site. Please let me know if you require further information in order to take this to the EMC in
November. Also, if this proposal is acceptable to DWQ, could you please respond back and let me know so that I can
coordinate appropriately with EEP.
Thanks for your help with this.
-Kevin
Kevin L. Tweedy, PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
Technical Service Manager for Ecosystem Restoration
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Mitigation
TD

Appendix B:
Debit Ledger