20160372 Ver 2_DWR Comments to Mit Plan_Stony Fork Buffer Plan_20180709

hecklist for Riparian
DWR Stream Determination
�'DWR Site Viability Letter
l� to Location
o Directions including Lat & Long
0 8 -digit HUC &/or 14 digit (if applicable)
o County
o EMC approved Soil map, Topo and Aerial Maps
o Sub -watershed where applicable
Mitiaation Sites —created 7/15/13
KX
Project Name
Lthi No 1
Reviewed By
la� I R--
Date
Existing Site Conditions w/ photos '
-1'4aA n an a.9U tP
All proposed mitigation activities, including a brief summary of stream and/or wetland mitigation w/
a detailed planting plan �9-C.O.J�
V Monitoring & Maintenance Plan UU C
❑ Financial Assurance (if applicable)
Associated buffer and/or nutrient offset credit calcs, which shall include credit generation, service
-00 a4wUlto
area, etc.
,0' Credit Determination Table/Map 4L)-
7:&-
Verification
L)--&-Verification that the site does not have an impact on threatened or endangered species
❑ Verification that the site is not affected by on-site or nearby sources of contamination as provided
by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
❑ Verification that the site can be constructed on land if it is an archaeological site;
❑ A list of all permits that will be required and obtained prior to constructing the mitigation site for
nutrient offset and/or buffer mitigation (e.g. Sediment and Erosion Control Plan from Division of
Land Resources, NCG010000 Stormwater Permit from NCDWQ, 404 permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification from NCDWQ).

Prosect Name: Stony Fork Mitigation Site (reviewed for buffer mitigation potential per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295)
DWR Staff Reviewer: Katie Merritt
DWR #: 2016-0372v2
Mitigation Plan Checklist is attached
Submitted to DMS: July 9, 2018
General comments on the Plan are provided in Items 1-4 below. Specific comments are provided in
Items 5-14 below:
1. Credit Assets for buffer are inconsistent throughout the document. Inconsistencies noted
on the following: pg. 23, 32, section 12.3 (table)
2. Provide site photos in the Appendix showing existing conditions of riparian areas proposed
for restoration, & enhancement along T2.2.
3. Usually there is an appendix summarizing the buffer mitigation along reaches, which
includes specifics to the monitoring plan, performance standards, credit assets,
restoration/enhancement plan, etc that are different than the stream mitigation plan.
Please provide an appendix titled "Buffer Mitigation Plan".
4. Lack of detail is provided for riparian restoration & enhancement areas:
• SF reaches: Riparian Restoration along South Fork is not described in much detail,
other than in section 6.1 where it vaguely references the removal of privet in the
buffer (note that "buffer" is defined as Zone 1 and Zone 2 and only includes the first
50' from Top of Banks). For added clarity, please use the term "riparian areas".
• According to the viability letter much is needed in the form of invasive species
removal & management along SF up to its confluence with T1 to receive Restoration
credit. Please explain what KCI will be doing in areas proposed for Restoration along
SF & T1
• T2.2 was re-evaluated this year based on the substantial privet removal in the
buffer. The Site viability letter indicates that Enhancement & Restoration areas
"need to be managed aggressively during the entire five (5) years." No mention of
this is provided in the mitigation plan. Additionally, planting larger stock of woody
stems was also recommended due to the conditions of the buffer during that site
visit in April. Therefore, please provide more detail so I can confirm it complies with
the site viability letter for being eligible for buffer mitigation. I recommend this level
of detail be provided in the appendix requested in Item #3 above & noted on the
Planting Plan sheets
age 1 1 4

• Many references describing changes to adjacent land uses since the IRT/DWR visit
are provided, but no visual representation is included in the plan. Please include an
aerial showing the current site conditions in and around the proposed easement
boundary. Please reference the new aerial as a Figure and incorporate that figure in
text where KCI references future roads, construction, development, crossings, etc.
5. Section 12.3: Map Sheets
• Map Sheet #2 -Shows the west side of the farm path between T1/SF confluence and
T2/SF confluence proposed for Preservation credit. However, the viability letter
indicates the pine plantation is not suitable for any credit. Please revise credits
accordingly to comply with the viability letter.
• Sheets do not accurately depict current land uses near the project easement. Please
use the aerial requested in #4 above as the base layer for this section.
6. Section 6.10: lacks necessary details.
• Many areas on this site require special attention with regards to the stems planted,
stock and density. Please add detail to the planting plan using specific areas where
special attention is warranted (see viability letter). (example: Enhancement areas
are described in the viability letter as having no understory; therefore, DWR
recommends KCI be selective when choosing what plants to use to establish a
healthy understory in areas receiving Enhancement credit.
7. Section 5.0:
• Please add a goal that targets a high level of intervention and management of
invasive species within the riparian areas. This should be a goal for this site
considering that a 1:1 and 2:1 ratio has been agreed to by the DWR for the removal
and management of the invasives present for buffer mitigation.
8. Table 16:
• a ratio of 3:1 is shown in the column for areas >100' from top of bank, and therefore
the amount of credits are higher than if using 33% as required in the buffer
mitigation rule. Adjust credits based on using 33% instead of 3:1. Example: 37,091
* .33=12,240 whereas 37,091/3 = 12,364. Note: the mitigation banks are required
to use the 33%.
9. Section 7.0:
• Riparian Buffer Performance should be included in the added appendix with that
new appendix referenced here in this section
• In this part, there are two different performance standards being stated, however
KCI needs to choose which one they want to be held accountable for. Here are the
two performance standards to choose from:
1. ...a minimum of 4 native hardwood tree species with no species greater than
50% of planted stems; or
e 2 1 4

2. four native hardwood tree and native shrub species, with no species greater
than 50% of planted stems
• If you want to include volunteer species, that's fine. Clarify that only "desirable
volunteers may be included to meet performance standards and upon DWR
approval".
10. Section 8.0:
■ DWR requests that monitoring be done no earlier than the end of August and no
later than mid-December. Mitigation banks are held to this standard.
■ Add a statement clarifying that vegetation monitoring will begin no earlier than at
least 5 months post -planting efforts. Currently, it says after the first full growing
season.
■ Add a statement that the monitoring will be for a period of five monitoring years or
until DWR approval. (emphasis added)
Clarify that the parameters being monitored are mainly for planted stems.
■ Why are exotic and invasive "stems" going to be included in the stem counts?
■ Section 5.1- 0295 (2)(E) indicates that the monitoring plan shall also include the
"health and average stem densities" (emphasis added). Add clarity to this section to
meet the rule expectation that vigor is an important parameter to note in the annual
reports.
■ Figure 10 shows the approximate location of monitoring plots. --DWR recommends
ensuring that each reach has a plot located on both sides of the stream where
restoration or enhancement is being generated for buffer mitigation.
-Please do not place plots within or partially within a buffer preservation area.
-Please add another permanent plot within the buffer enhancement area along T2
along the right bank.
-Where non -permanent random plots are installed each monitoring year, DWR
would like to know what parameters KCI will use to determine where the plots will
be placed to accurately represent the planted and partially planted areas. For
example: areas within just 0-50' and/or 51-200', Enhancement areas, Restoration
areas, etc. This level of detail is necessary to determine if the buffer mitigation areas
are being monitored in the appropriate locations.
11. Section 9.0: Add DWR to this paragraph for purposes of notification and contingency
planning
12. Section 12.1: Plan Sheets
• Sheet 6: Tributary 1B & 1A are new tribs proposed off T1. Buffer Credit will need to
be deducted from the footprint where these streams will be located. Figures
provided in this plan do not currently show that deduction. Buffer credit is only
viable adjacent T1
314

• Sheet 14: bare roots are the only size of stems shown to be planted other than live
stakes. Is KCI not intending on planting larger stock within the buffer Enhancement
areas along T2.2? (see viability letter note)
13. Section 12.3:
• 1 like this table!
• Please give the table a title for referencing.
• This table shows different summations of credit potential than other parts of this
plan. Please address all inconsistencies in credit assets for buffer mitigation prior to
final submittal
• There is a subtotal of 45,445 ft2 of buffer preservation credits after applying the
ratios and % reductions; which is below the EPA of 175,721ft2. However, the EPA of
175,721 is then applied to a ratio of 10:1 on the next row implying that the project
will only yield 17,572 ft2. Please explain why the 10:1 was applied on the EPA and
which row of subtotals KCI is using towards their credit assets.
14. Note that this site cannot be used to generate nutrient offset credits according to the viability
letter.
M