20171122 Ver 2_GUC_RS Response to DWR Comments_20191107

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
November 7, 2019
Attn: Ms. Katie Merritt
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources - Wetland and Stormwater Branch
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Subject: Response to Comments - Brushy Mountain Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site: IRT Mitigation
Plan Comment Responses
SAW-2017-01463
Dear Ms. Merritt,
The following is a detailed response to comments received from DWR regarding Restoration Systems'
GUC Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking Instrument & Bank Parcel Development
Package. DWR comments are in black, and IRS' responses are in blue. To aid in your review, a track -
changed .pdf of the MBI & BPDP are provided along with a clean .pdf version. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions during your review.
Sincerelv.
Raymond Holz
Restoration Systems, LLC
Comments Responses to the Mitigation Banking Instrument
- Accepted all proposed changes
- Changed river basin name to "Tar -Pamlico" throughout the document
- Removed "enhancement" language
- Removed all references to "leasing" credits
- IRS intends to acquire a permanent conservation easement
- IRS recognizes nutrient offset credit can not be generated from buffer preservation
- Added original March 25, 2019 Site Viability letter to Table 2.0
IRS anticipates Greenville applying a portion of the nutrient offset credits to their NPDES wastewater
discharge permit. An acre of buffer restoration generates 75.77 Ibs/year over a 30 year period, or
2,273lbs/acre of nitrogen offset credit. Likewise an acre of buffer restoration generates 4.88 Ibs/year
over a 30 year period, or 146.40 Ibs/acre of phosphorus offset credit. The new rule anticipates that
permanent buffer restoration projects will be able to generate 75.77 Ibs/year of nitrogen and 4.88
Ibs/year of offset credit per acre. Essentially wastewater permittees use the unit of Ibs/year vs
stormwater permittees using Ibs. IRS agrees to wait until the new rule is finalized and applied to
address these issues.
Page 1 of 5
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Comment Responses to the Bank Parcel Development Package
General:
- Unless expressly noted below, RS accepted all grammar and structural changes, including
deletions and additions.
- In areas <30', 0295 (n)(1) allows for a credit reduction, but still allows credit to be generated
(example: 20-29' = 75% full credit) . However, the figures say that TOB-30' is not viable for buffer
credit. Explain.
This was an oversight on the part of RS. The document, figures, and credit tables have all been
updated accordingly.
What is meant by the "Non -Contiguous Area" for the No Credit Area locations?
These are areas within the conservation easement where restoration activities are occurring;
however control from the easement to the top of the stream or ditch bank is not maintained. That
is if water fell into or traversed across a "Non -Contiguous Area" it would leave the conservation
easement before entering the ditch or stream. It is RS' understanding from previous projects, that
credit can not be generated when control of the runoff is not maintained through the riparian
zone, i.e., all the way to the receiving ditch or stream.
Section 1.0
- Make sure the naming of the MBI here matches the MBI (i remember recommending a different
name in my comments)
Two locations updated in the BPDP to "GUC Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Banking Instrument"
- Per DWR comment, RS added, "RS will not begin any riparian site work until DWR has verified in
writing that PNG is compliant with applicable permits for the pipeline constructed on the Parcel
and the temporary PNG easement is abandoned."
- There was also a site viability letter issued on may 29, 2019, which is included in Appendix B. add
a reference to the other letter, include any additional applicable in -field classifications.
Add an "* ' below this table and refer to the additional Note on the May 29th viability letter. There
is a note about existing things that need to be addressed prior to being viable.
Document revised accordingly
- DWR requested RS add "most recently as" to section 1.2 before "as biosolids irrigation fields," the
most recent landuse on the subject tracts of land is agriculture. RS has revised this sentence to
read, "which were historically used as agricultural fields by private landowners, and as biosolid
irrigation fields for the City's Waste Water Treatment Plant, and most recently again as
agricultural fields."
- In -field determinations added to Table 3.
Page 2 of 5

Section 2.0
- Width of existing utility line added (30-feet)
Section 2.4.5 Air Transport Facilities: Upon review of prior RS' BPDPs and other submitted by
Mitigation Bankers in the recent past, RS has removed this section.
RS added a new Section 2.4.5 Irrigation Infrastructure with the following language as a response
to comment provided by DWR in Section 3.1, "Irrigation infrastructure previously used for the
irrigation of biosolids by the City of Greenville's Wastewater Treatment Plant will remain on the
property. All such infrastructure is located outside of the proposed conservation easement areas.
Landuse outside of the easement areas are expected to stay in agriculture, and as such, the
irrigation infrastructure will remain to support those activities. The use of the subject tracts of land
including the easement areas for biosolid application has not occurred since 2004, and will not
occur within the easement at any point moving forward."
Section 3.0
- At table 7 & other locations, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Restoration Plan Figure reference was
updated
- Table 7: RS added a table note referenced by "*' after, "Establishment of a native herbaceous
community via site -specific seed mix." The added note states, "Permanent Seed Mix: RS will
include both native grasses and forbs, with a variety of annual and perennial plants known to
benefit wildlife and pollinators. The grass seed component will focus on low growing species which
favor the establishment of the target forest community, particularly species such as purpletop
(Tridens flavus) and bentgrass (Agrostis hyemalis). The forb component will include a diverse
mixture of native and naturalized forbs and wildflowers, including fifteen or more species."
- RS updated the Phase 1 Project Schedule, Parcel Protection and Construction Activities now slated
for Q1 2020
Section 3.3 — why are you planning to exclude shrub species? 0295 (n)(2) does allow both shrub
and hardwoods to be counted towards success if proposed. Please explain.
If RS wants to use the shrubs towards their performance standard, RS will need to change the
text within the BPDP to speak to that.
It was RS' oversight to not count planted shrubs towards success criteria. We appreciate the note
and have updated the document accordingly to account for both tree and shrub species.
How will RS ensure that plantings are planted in appropriate soil types?
Species that RS has already listed in the planting list are suitable for all soil types at the Site based
on -site conditions and their classification within Schafale and Weakley, 2012. Therefore, RS will
not have to establish a method to ensure one specific tree or shrub species is planted within one
specif soil type of the Site. Trees will be mixed thoroughly before planting to provide a diverse
and random planting of the proposed species.
Section 4.0
- A monitoring plan figure is now provided within Appendix A (Figure 9 — Monitoring)
Page 3 of 5

Section 5.0
- All DWR proposed deletions and additions were made
Section 6.0
- All Tables were updated based on DWR comments. Please note, given the significant size of these
tables, IRS is no longer able to add them to Credit Determination figures and make them legible.
Since you will have two credit ledgers for your buffer credits (1 is Preservation credits, and 1 is
Restoration credits), you will need to show your combined credits for both types in ft. and in.
acres. — Provided
- Add what the Percentage is of the Preservation being used for RBC. — Provided
Appendix A
- Naming consistency reviewed
Figure 5 - the legend doesn't include a description for the Conservation Easement Boundary.
Updated
- Figure 6A (actually labeled 7A) — Document labeling revised
In areas <30', 0295 (n)(1) allows for a credit reduction, but still allows credit to be
generated (example: 20-29' = 75% full credit). However, the figures say that TOB-30' is not
viable for buffer credit. Explain.
Also, if there are areas that qualify for 75% full credit, those areas will not qualify for
nutrient offset credit and therefore would have to be detailed in the credit tables.
Currently, the credit tables show only those areas that are at least 50', and that is fine if
that is what IRS wants to do.
(mentioned above in "General") - This was an oversight on the part of IRS. The document,
figures, and credit tables have all been updated accordingly to general credit within this
area.
What is meant by the "Non -Contiguous Area" for the No Credit Area locations?
See note above in "General"
Credit tables on the maps will need to be updated to match those in Section 6
Tables have been updated however due to their size, they do not fit on subject figures
- Figure 7A (actually labeled 8A) — Document labeling revised
- Correct typo of "adjacnet" to "adjacent" — Updated
There is Note that says "no buffer credit is given in areas with buffer width of less than 30'. IRS
could get credit where the easement goes to at least 29' at 75% full credit. —Thank you for the
note, we have updated accordingly to do so.
Page 4 of 5

- Same Note as referenced in comment #2 also says that no nutrient offset credit is given for
width less than 30'; however, Nutrient offset can only be given for widths that are a minimum of
50'. Correct inconsistencies. — Inconsistencies corrected
Appendix D
- The Easement for Line 439 is not signed. Shouldn't it be?
A signed copy is provided
Page 5 of 5