20100857 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Proposal_20090511

Kulz, Eric
From: Barrett Jenkins [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:47 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Adam Riggsbee
Subject: Butlers Branch: Nutrient Offset Buffer Restoration for City of Raleigh
Attachments: Neuse River Nitrogen Abatement Technical Proposal to the City of Raleigh 1-22-08.PDF
Eric,
Please find attached the proposal from Restoration Systems to the City of Raleigh for the Butlers Branch Nutrient
Abatement Buffer Restoration Project. Note the project schedule will be pushed back to ideally begin at the end of this
summer.
I'm assuming you've spoken with Adam about this briefly and its part in the larger package for the City of Raleigh. Please
review and comment. We need to hear back from you by the end of the month if at all possible.
Thanks,
Barrett
2010085T
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
NEUSE RIVER NITROGEN ABATEMENT
BUTLERS BRANCH NUTRIENT BUFFER RESTORATION PROJECT
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
And
!'s 4 St icr;ce
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
919-755-9490
www.restorationsystems.com
January 17, 2008
THE CITY OF RALEIGH, NC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRO:
PART 1:
PART 2:
PART 3:
PART 4:
PART 5:
TABLES
Proposed Project Introduction ...............................................................1
Corporate Experience ..............................................................................3
Site Description .......................................................................................4
Restoration Plan ...................................................................................... 9
Monitoring Plan ......................................................................................11
References .............................................................................................12
Table 1: Soils Mapped within Butlers Branch ..............................................................6
Table 2: Detailed Planting Regime ...........................................................................10
FIGURES
Figure 1: Butlers Branch Location ............................................................................7
Figure 2: Butlers Branch Easement Boundary ............................................................8
APPENDIX
Appendix A: NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology and Calculations for
Determining Nitrogen Reduction Associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment
Introduction
Neuse River: Nutrient Sensitive Waters
The Neuse River drains - 6200 square miles of North Carolina's Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions.
Formed by the confluence of the Eno and Flats rivers, the Neuse flows for nearly 200 miles where it
empties into the 2nd largest estuary in North America, the Ablemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex (APEC).
Over the last several decades, accelerated land development within the Neuse Basin has markedly
increased annual loads of organic and inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus (collectively referred
to as nutrients) that are being discharged into the Neuse River, its estuary and the greater APEC. The
lagoonal nature of North Carolina's estuarine system results in a lengthy hydrologic residence time of
-one year (Paerl et al. 2001). Such stagnant conditions in the estuary and increased nutrient loads
associated with basin-wide development have compromised the system's water quality.
In response to documented water quality problems within the Neuse River Estuary (part of the APEC), the
NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) listed the Neuse River as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) in
1988, and the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted a set of rules (1997) in support of
the Neuse River NSW Management Strategy (the Neuse Rules). Effectively, the Neuse Rules
established a goal of reducing annual nitrogen loads to the Neuse River Estuary by 30% (of the average
annual load for the period 1991-1995) by 2001 (15A NCAC 2B .0232). In addition, the Neuse Rules
regulate: the protection and maintenance of riparian areas (Rule .0233); wastewater discharges (Rule
.0234); urban stormwater management (Rule .0235); agricultural nitrogen reduction (Rules .0236 and
.0238); nutrient management [strategy training] (Rule .0239); and nitrogen offset fees (Rule .0240).
It is within the Neuse Rules (specifically, Rules .0233 and .0240) that Restoration Systems proposes the
following riparian buffer restoration project to provide nitrogen offsets for the City of Raleigh's wastewater
treatment facility on the Neuse River (NPDES permit NC0029033). The following is a proposal to restore
+54 acres of headwater buffer habitat in the Neuse Basin, providing 4,091 pounds of nitrogen offsets per
year, or more than 122,742 pounds of nitrogen offsets over 30 years to the City of Raleigh.
Stream Buffers as Nitrogen Abatement
The interface of streams or rivers and their surrounding landscapes is known as the riparian zone.
Healthy riparian zone ecosystems "buffer" the impact of agricultural and urban land use on surface water
quality by intercepting and retaining pollutants conveyed by runoff. In particular, well forested riparian
zones of more than 150 feet (in width) are highly effective at buffering the poor water quality
associated with urban and agricultural runoff (Lowrance 1998; Mayer et al. 2007). Riparian zones
have greater influence over stream ecosystems than other components of catchments (Naiman and
Decamps 1997) by providing water quality benefits (as cited above), improving bank stability (Beeson and
Doyle 1995), supporting in-stream habitat through the contribution of large woody debris (Benke et al.
1985) and maintaining wildlife passage corridors. Because buffers play such an integral role in stream
ecosystem structure and function, riparian zone restoration and conservation are the primary components
of most stream ecosystem protection strategies (Osborne and Kovacic 1993; Palmer et al. 2005; Hassett
et al. 2005).
North Carolina's EMC recognized the ecological benefits of healthy, intact buffers along the Neuse River
and it's tributaries-as evidenced by Rule .0233 (riparian area, or buffer protection rule). This recognition
allowed the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to leverage money from the Nutrient Offset Fee
Payment Program (NOFPP; Rule .0240) to purchase nearly 412,000 pounds of nitrogen-offsets
generated through buffer restoration projects (RTI International, 2007). This accounts for -77% of the
EEP's total nitrogen-offsets (533,000 pounds) provided to date. The EEP used NCDWQ calculations to
determine the nitrogen-offsets generated by each acre of buffer restoration (Appendix A). Using the same
calculations (discussed in more detail below), the buffer restoration project proposed here will provide
more than 122,742 pounds of nitrogen-offsets for use in the Neuse River basin.
Restoration Systems, LLC 1
Nutrient Abatement Calculations
Restoration Systems proposes the restoration of +54 acres of riparian buffer habitat in the Neuse River
basin to provide nitrogen-offsets for the City of Raleigh. Quantities of nitrogen offsets to be generated by
the proposed headwater buffer restoration project were determined using the DWQ Methodology and
Calculations for Determining Nitrogen Reduction Associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment
(Appendix A). The calculations are based on three well recognized nutrient abatement functions of
restored riparian ecosystems: 1) reduced nutrient export because of land use change; 2) nutrient
removal from non-point source runoff; and 3) nutrient removal from periodic overbank flooding.
DWQ concludes that over 30 years these three functions collectively provide 2,273 pounds of nitrogen
abatement per acre. Thus the +54 acres of restoration proposed here will provide 4091 pounds of
nitrogen offsets per year, or 122,742 pounds of nitrogen offsets over 30 years.
Restoration Systems, LLC 2
Part 1: Corporate Experience
Restoration Systems, LLC
With over 25 miles of restored stream, more than 5000 acres of wetland restoration and more than
155,000 pounds of nitrogen credits sold, Restoration Systems is the largest private provider of
compensatory mitigation in North Carolina. Most of Restoration Systems' 29 active restoration projects
are within the Neuse River basin, while the firm's other projects are located across North Carolina,
Maryland and South Carolina. Through strategic partnerships with engineering and scientific consultants,
such as EcoScience, Restoration Systems has become a reputable provider of ecological restoration
products, including nitrogen credits.
EcoScience Corporation
EcoScience Corporation is a full-service environmental and engineering consulting firm specializing in the
preparation of ecological assessments and environmental impact statements, endangered species
determinations, wetland delineations, soil surveys, permitting, mitigation planning, stream restoration,
storm water master planning, hydrologic and hydraulic engineering, and surface or groundwater
modeling. EcoScience is based in North Carolina and has worked extensively throughout the Southeast-
including South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Restoration Systems, LLC
Part 2: Site Descriptions
2.1 Butlers Branch
Butlers Branch is located in Craven County -17 miles east of the Town of Kinston (Figure 1) within the
Neuse River Basin in 8-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020202 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (North
Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] subbasin number 03-04-08).
The Butlers Branch site is encompassed within several parcels, which include agricultural fields and
disturbed forests. The majority of this site surrounds an unnamed tributary (main tributary) that drains
directly to the Neuse River. A smaller portion encompasses Village Creek and unnamed tributaries to it.
The main tributary is a second-order stream, which drains approximately a 0.3- to 0.4-square mile
watershed at the outfall of the restoration reach (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Fort Barnwell,
North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle).
Physiography, Watersheds, and Land Use
The Site is located in the Carolina Flatwoods and Mid-Atlantic Floodplains/Low Terrace ecoregions of
North Carolina (Griffith et al. 2002). Regional physiography is characterized by flat plains on lightly
dissected marine terraces major river floodplains and
Onsite land use/existing riparian buffers
?7-[851,
associated terraces, swamps, Carolina bays, oxbow
lakes, ponds, and low gradient streams with sand and
silt substrates. The upstream watershed is dominated
by agricultural land, small forest patches, and sparse
residential development. Onsite land use is
characterized by agricultural land utilized primarily
for row crop production. Riparian vegetation
adjacent to the stream is very sparse and disturbed
due to plowing and regular maintenance.
Water Quality
Village Creek (directly adjacent to Butlers Branch) and
the reach of the Neuse River into which the Butlers
Branch site drains (Stream Index Number 27-89 and
Best Usage
Classification of C Sw NSW (NCDWQ
2002). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. The supplemental classification
Sw (Swamp Waters) is intended to recognize those waters
that generally exhibit low flow velocities, low pH, and low
dissolved oxygen. No specific restrictions on development
are required. The supplemental classification NSW is given
to waters in need of additional nutrient management, due to
their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation.
Butlers Branch (Figure 2) is not located within a Targeted
Local Watershed; however, Targeted Local Watershed
I
-:..,;tea .. _...
r
Lack of riparian vegetation
on stream banks
03020202080010 is located approximately one mile
downstream of this unnamed tributary system (NCWRP 2002). None of the channels within the Butler's
Branch project area are listed on the NCDWQ final 2006 303(d) lists (NCDWQ 2006).
Restoration Systems, LLC 4
Vegetation
Landcover surrounding Butlers Branch is characterized predominately by agricultural land and disturbed
forest. Agricultural areas are regularly maintained and plowed for row crops, leaving soils disturbed and
exposed to the edges of the stream banks. Any existing riparian vegetation adjacent to streams is
predominantly disturbed and sparse in cover. Periodic use of herbicides and manual channel
maintenance tends to suppress vegetation within the channels, but these control mechanisms do not
preclude plants reaching sapling stage between treatments. Plants observed included woody seedlings
and saplings, as well as a vigorous community of annual and perennial herbaceous vegetation.
The dominant plants found throughout the riparian community include: willow oak (Quercus phellos),
overcup oak (Q. lyrata), water oak (Q. nigra), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), black willow (Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum),
hazelnut (Corylus americana) , black walnut (Juglans nigra), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), horse sugar
(Symplocos tinctoria), American elm (Ulmus Americana), American ash (Fraxinus Americana), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), tupelo (Nyssa
aquatica), American holly (Ilex opaca), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), privet (Ligustrum sinense), wild
rose (Rosa sp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), elderberry (Sambucus Canadensis), winged sumac (Rhus
copallina), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), ground cherry (Solanum carolinense), aster spp. (Aster spp.), cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), panicgrass (Panicum spp.), woolgrass (Scirpus
spp.), soft needle rush (Juncus effusus), fescue (Festuca sp.), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), pokeberry (Phytolacca
americana), cattail (Typha latifolia), mistletoe (Phoradendron flavescens), shadbush (Amelanchier
canadensis), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), viburnum (Viburnum nudum),
wild grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxccodendron toxicodendron), silverling (Baccharus halimifolia)
and rattan vine (Berchemia scandens).
Soils and Land Form
Soils that occur within Butlers Branch, according to the Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina
(USDA 1989) are described in Table 1.
Restoration Systems, LLC
Table 1: Soils Mapped within Butlers Branch
Soil Series Hydric Family Description
Status*
Craven Class B Aquic This series consists of moderately well-drained, slowly
Hapludults permeable soils of uplands. Depth to the seasonal high
water table occurs at 2 to 3 feet.
Conetoe Non-hydric Arenic This series consists of well-drained, moderately rapid
Hapludults permeable soils on stream terraces and low marine
terraces. Depth to the seasonal high water table
occurs at greater than 5 feet.
Goldsboro Class B Aquic This series consists of moderately well-drained,
Paleudults moderately permeable soils of marine terraces and
uplands. Depth to the seasonal high water table occurs
at 1.5 to 2.5 feet.
Lynchburg Class B Aeric This series consists of somewhat poorly drained,
Paleaquults moderately permeable soils on marine terraces and
flats. Depth to the seasonal high water table occurs at
0.5 to 1.5 feet.
Rains Class A Typic This series consists of poorly drained, moderately
Paleaquults permeable soils on flats, depressions, and Carolina
bays. Depth to the seasonal high water table occurs at
0 to 1 foot.
Masontown Class A Cumulic This series consists of very poorly drained, moderately
Humaquepts rapid permeable soils on nearly level floodplains. The
seasonal high water table occurs at or near the surface.
Muckalee Class A Typic This series consists of poorly drained, moderately rapid
Fluvaquents permeable soils on floodplains. The seasonal high
water table occurs at or near the surface.
State Non-hydric Typic This series consists of well-drained, moderately
Hapludults permeable soils on stream terraces. Depth to the
seasonal high water table occurs at 3.5 to 6 feet.
Tomotley Class A Typic This series consists of poorly drained, moderately to
Endoaquults moderately slowly permeable soils on terraces. Depth
to the seasonal high water table occurs at 0 to 1 foot.
* Class A - hydric soils; Class B - nonhydric soils that may contain hydric soil inclusions (USDA 2005)
Rare and Protected Species
The Fish and Wildlife Service lists six species for Craven County, including the American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis), endangered red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), leatherback sea
turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) and the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), as well as the
formerly listed bald eagle (Haliaeeletus leucocephalus) and the threatened sensitive joint vetch
(Aeschynomene virginica). However, it is important to point out that the work inherent in establishing
riparian buffers includes surveys and planting operations, neither of which will result in habitat destruction
or modification, nor will the implementation activies result in excessive noise that would disturb eagle
nesting activity. Based on this reality, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed work will have No
Effect on rare and protected species. Parenthetically, it is important to point out that an adult pair of bald
eagles were observed perched in a tree within the agricultural fields complex during a site
reconnaissance in December 2007.
Restoration Systems, LLC 6
Figure 1: Butlers Branch Location
Site is located in Neuse River Basin
USGS HUC 03020202
Craven County, NC
17 miles east of Kinston
Directions:
Taking NC-11/NC-55/N out of Kinston
Turn right at NC-55 travel 16 miles
Turn left onto Bidlle Farm Rd travel 1.2
Site is on right and left of road
Grifton --. y-
y , `l ;; Butlers Branch
.} N euse River
- • 11 r ? ?a t ,
_. t
.= '7 yJ?
tier ? o ,
\ ,1 cf r
A
Kinston
F
Dover J
` ? Q V
' 5R' ??"Jr --
"? I? 0 0.5 1 2 3 A
Miles
i,
Restoration Systems, LLC 7
The Neuse River Basin
Restoration Systems, LLC 8
Figure 2: Butlers Branch Easement Boundary
UM 0 390 780 1,560 2,340 3,120 Q 54 acre buffer restoration area
Feet A
Part 3: Restoration Plan
The objectives of this riparian buffer restoration plan include:
1) Eliminate crop farming within riparian areas
2) Prevent the potential utility of these sites as animal waste spray fields
3) Re-establish riparian buffer forests up to 200 feet from each channel margins
4) Intercept and retain nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and fecal coliform conveyed by runoff
from the drainage areas
5) Eliminate agricultural production and fertilization from within riparian buffer areas
Buffer restoration activities are expected to intercept and treat inputs of agricultural run-off, which convey
pesticides, fertilizers and animal waste to local surface waters. Furthermore, buffer plantings will restore
wildlife habitat associated with a natural riparian corridor. A recent meta-analysis of existing research
indicates that wide buffers (>150 feet) are more effective at nitrogen removal than narrow buffers
(< 75 feet; Mayer et al., 2007). Thus Restoration Systems plans to restore up to 200 feet of buffer habitat
at each site.
Site drainage area and primary floodplain are dominated by land uses that are potentially deleterious to
water quality in the region. Based on studies by the state, row crop production and highway runoff are
contributing to the eutrophication of downstream waters. Reforestation of the affected floodplains will
eliminate sources of nitrogen from the local watershed area and will treat stream nitrogen loads flowing
through reforested buffer zones during floods, ultimately reducing the amount of nitrogen conveyed to
downstream waters such as the Neuse River Estuary and the Ablemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex.
Primary components of the restoration plan include: 1) deep ripping/scarification; and 2) vegetation
planting.
1. Deep Ripping/Scarification
Crop land areas will be ripped and scarified prior to vegetation planting activities. In summary,
+54 acres will be ripped with linear bands perpendicular to the direction of surface water flows.
The established micro-topography on leveled surfaces will promote diffuse flow and surface water
storage throughout the floodplain. In addition, subsurface hardpans will be eliminated to promote
vegetation growth/survival and to increase groundwater recharge rates.
2. Vegetation Planting
Bare-root seedlings of tree and shrub species will be planted on 8-foot centers to a density of 680
stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15
to allow plants to stabilize and establish root growth during the dormant period and set root during
the spring season. A total of 45520 diagnostic tree and shrub seedlings will be planted in the
riparian buffers during restoration.
Reference forest ecosystem (RFE) data, on-site observations, and community descriptions from
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and
Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (DWQ) will be used to develop the primary plant
community associations that will be promoted during community restoration activities. These
community associations include: 1) levee/streambank forest, 2) riverine swamp forest, and 3)
mixed mesophyticic hardwood forest. Planting elements within each designated landscape area
are listed in Table 2.
Restoration Systems, LLC g
Table 2: Detailed Plantina Reaime
Planting Zone 1
(0-20 feet) 2
(20-50 feet) 3
(50-200 feet)
TOTAL STEMS
PLANTED
Planting Association Stream Bank Stream-Side
Margin Primary
Flood lain
Stem count; Area (acres) 1240/ac; 7 ac 890/ac; 20 ac 680/ac; 27 ac 54 ac
Species # planted /
fraction of total # planted /
fraction of total # planted /
fraction of total # planted / fraction of
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 868 .1 1068 .06 1936
Silky Dogwood (Cornus ammonium) 434 .05 890 .05 1324
Silky Willow (Salix sericea) 434 .05 434
Common Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) 868 .1 868
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) 87 .01 178 .01 265
American Holly (Ilex opaca) 434 .05 890 .05 1324
Sweet Bay (Magnolia virginiana) 174 .02 890 .05 1064
Red Chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia) 868 .1 356 .02 1224
Possumhaw Viburnum (Viburnum nudum) 434 .05 434
River birch (Betula nigra) 694 .08 2314 .13 571 .03 3579
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 694 .08 2314 .13 571 .03 3579
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 694 .08 2136 .12 1904 .1 8132
Bald cypress (Taxodium disrichum) • 347 .04 1246 .07 1904 .1 3497
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 261 .03 712 .04 2094 .11 3067
Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 174 .02 712 .04 2094 .11 2980
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 174 .02 712 .04 2094 .11 2980
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) 174 .02 712 .04 2094 .11 2980
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 1904 .1 1904
American elm (Ulmus americana) 1904 .1 1904
Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 1142 .06 1142
Water oak (Quercus nigra) 762 .04 762
TOTAL 8680 1 17800 1 19040 1 45520
Some species may not be available at the time of planting. Suitable substitutions will be made it this contingency arises.
Restoration Systems, LLC 10
Part 4: Monitoring Plan
The Monitoring Plan consists of measurement of vegetation growth and survival. Monitoring of
restoration efforts will be performed annually for 5 years or until success criteria are fulfilled.
After planting has been completed in early spring (2008), an initial evaluation will be performed to verify
planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and
additional site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain the
degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of
vegetation will be performed between September 1 and October 30 after each growing season until the
vegetation success criterion is achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, approximately ten sample plots will
be randomly placed within each site. Sample-plot distributions will be determined following completion of
plowing activities. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species
composition and species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous
species will also be recorded. Vegetation success criteria will be established based upon final
requirements of the DWQ for this project.
Current. Interim and Permanent Ownership
Restoration Systems (RS) currently holds options-to-purchase conservation easements from all of the
land owners associated with the 54-acres of proposed buffer restoration. Upon notice-to-proceed, RS will
acquire the conservation easement over each parcel. Conservation easements will be held in perpetuity
by a governmental or non-profit organization, as agreed upon by RS and the City of Raleigh. RS will
remain responsible for project implementation and achievement of success criteria.
Project Schedule
The project timeline is dependent upon the official notice-to-proceed. The timeline includes the following.
Spring 2008 Conservation easement establishment earthwork and planting
Fall 2008 Site maintenance and replanting
Fall 2009 Initiate Post-Removal Monitoring
Spring 2013 Complete 5 years of post-removal monitoring
Restoration Systems, LLC 11
Part 5: References
Beeson CE and PF Doyle. 1995. Comparison of bank erosion at vegetated and non-vegetated channel
bends. Water Resources Bulletin 31: 983-990.
Benke AC, RL Henry, DM Gillespie, and RJ Hunter. 1985. Importance of snag habitat for animal
production in southeastern streams. Fisheries 10: 8-13.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2002. Basinwide Planning Program: 2002 Neuse
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Neuse/2002/plan.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2006a. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
hftr):Hh2o.enr.state,nc.us/tmdI/General 303d. htm
North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP) 2002. Neuse River Basin Watershed Restoration
Plan. http://www.nceep.net/services/restr)lans/neuse 2003.pdf
Griffith G, J Omernick and J Comstack. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina: regional descriptions.
ftr)://fto.epa.aov/wed/ecoregions/nc sc/nc eco desc.doc
Hassett B, B Palmer, E Bernhardt, S Smith, J Carr, and D Hart. 2005. Restoring watersheds project by
project: trends in Chesapeake Bay tributary restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
3: 259-267.
Osborne LL, and DA Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and
stream management. Freshwater Biology 29: 243-258.
Mayer PM, SK Reynolds, MD McCutchen, and TJ Canfield. 2007. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in
riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36: 1172-1180.
Naiman RJ and H Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 28: 621-658.
Paerl HW, JD Bales, LW Ausley, CP Buzzelli, LB Crowder, LA Eby, JM Fear, M Go, BL Peirels, TL
Richardson, and JS Ramus. 2001. Ecosystem impacts of three sequential hurricanes (Dennis,
Floyd and Irene) on the Untied States' largest lagoonal estuary, Pamlico Sound, NC. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 5655-5660.
Palmer MA, ES Bernhardt, JD Allan, PS Lake, G Alexander, S Brooks, J Carr, S Clayton, CN Dahm, JF
Shah, DL Galat, SG Loss, P Goodwin, DD Hart, B Hassett, R Jenkinson, GM Kondolf, R Lave, JL
Meyer, TK O'Donnell, L Pagano, E Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river
restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208-217.
RTI International. 2007. A Study of the Costs Associated with Providing Nutrient Controls that are
Adequate to Offset Point Source and Nonpoint Source Discharges of Nitrogen and Other
f
Nutrients. http://www.nceei).net/r)ages/Final RTI Report Nutrient Offset June 2007.0
Schafale MP and AS Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Restoration Systems, LLC 12
APPENDIX A:
NC Division of Water Quality-
Methodology and Calculations for Determining Nitrogen
Reduction Associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment
O

a
m °
? Cl)
1 O
N
LL
J V1
a c
W

O
N -
C
N
U
U
a)
w
y
m ca
O E
O ? O
C N

O
C to

.
O
O O U
R
c
7 O
U O
O
C n
U N x
a)
> C w
a3 J

O 8 O T
3 LL U c
°
Q. Y O E M
.LL M-
0 y
> N 0 0 7
a -o
o

c 0 c
° v E
ao

c0 . 4) _
N
> N O
to ? a7 ?
c
N
E E o
E
O
U O
O O y7y
N N'? N
C > > N >' CO N
E E
Uai dEa?
CQ'co
N N
v .` . LD 0-6 c

c c o m
c
JZZ O U
cv c
p.

0 6 5 _
co N

N a) a) O •LM O
Na)a) O -

Comm N
o JQ
O
N CO ? F N M
N
C
w
7
Q
ar
C
d

z
W Y
N ?
O
U
d
z
WA
O `
U
C

f0 O
C ?p
O V
N
.0 C
T
o ap5
N N O
Q V N`
7

co M
6-1
U V
o ao
6
N
3
a)
a)
C N
co N > j
'e 7 U
7 m ari m
C v N U
O J N
7 0 Q O >
Q? N
c a E
7 Q
c w x
O O c E
O 7m
Y 3 y )
a7
co -2
O N d N m
c a
a) a) 7 7 >
O
7 ? N T.? a C7 x
> C N c U O? N ,k
0
a) ° •(3 CD E 3 'a
L t0 N SEZS O J O
. CO J N N c LL co
C N t-' ; ? E ` m
N 7 N O O (0 N ?- x
x c
$ co a) X O C N `m m
L ?O N rn N ai C- N •? c
>, T c N 7 a3 W N
g E
O E C 8 C N> a Z a) 8
O D. Q j E f0 co .0 N
0 c
E 07 n?? ?? °c ?v $¢
t O J
U >
W N O
N .O L?C> F
O ?? Y
N c O?Y NF O(p? V aS E?
FL 1; Eo eu,
L w N a (/1 > N
.LD 78 py?, N E c f° N Rio rn? E E o N
U N'k N«Y? ELY N.Ok .O?
0? 0? y> E c >_ N J 2- > E C
7 O d L T c N U N L O 7
C a) N y E `_ c cc O E N
m~ ° x N W N o U C? as N
m N E ° ?A Q C?? ?tr= Eriv ap?pif?`'$
E C te 0 0 U.0 y 0 O E N G& p O aJ
O 7 - 17 - 7
O C a V 6 0 2 Q- c m E
= MO Mn -9 O? Of > L E E 0 co >
_O '«c? ??Q?+• 7 0 L
N 0 c N N N? N?? O o 8 N
cc?
E m m y N 3 3 N c .C y N N 0 7E
7 O 'd
N c O O' O
m H in 2 c c Z U F Y m Z Z
r N Cl)
N
ca
m
m
Q
>
o_
z
0
U
3
a
M
P-
N
Q
.Q
U
Q
N
Cl)