20081473 Ver 5_DWQ Comments_20120209

Strickland, Bev
From:
Merritt, Katie
Sent:
Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:50 PM
To:
Strickland, Bev
Subject:
FW: Comments: Smith Chapel BPDP
Bev,
Please add the email below to 2008 -1473 v5 (this number should be a new number recently requested under 2011-
0688).
Please save this email in laserfische as "Smith Chapel BPDP -DWQ Comments"
Thank you! O
Katie
From: Merritt, Katie
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:48 PM
To: 'Tommy Cousins'
Cc: Higgins, Karen
Subject: RE: Comments: Smith Chapel BPDP
Tommy,
I received the Smith Chapel — Proposed Riparian Buffer & Nutrient Offset Restoration Area BPDP for EBX Neuse 1, LLC on
January 26, 2012. 1 have the following comments and requests:
When referencing "buffer mitigation ", "riparian zone /area ", "buffer restoration" etc., where Riparian Buffer
Credits are proposed to be generated, please add the text "Neuse" buffer mitigation or "Neuse" riparian zor
or "Neuse" buffer restoration.
For all other areas proposed for generating Nutrient Offset Credits, please reference those as "riparian" instead
of "buffer ". Please edit the entire document to ensure this is clarified throughout. (one exception: if DWQ
determined the feature to be applicable to the Neuse Buffer rules and EBX decides to use the riparian buffer
zones for nutrient offset instead of buffer restoration, please specify this in the BPDP under the appropriate
section so that the mitigation efforts and areas are understood by all parties)
• Section 1.0 — paragraph 3: Please add the "Bank's" DWQ project number as a reference. That number is DWQ#
2008 -1473. Please also add that it was entered into by the parties on 11/10/08. (this document is referenced as
RBMBI in the text below)
• Section 2.5 — Please state in the text whether this leaking underground storage tank is still leaking and whether
it is posing a specific water quality concern to ground water or surface water. If there is not a concern, please
state that in the text and why. It also doesn't say what it is leaking. Do you happen to know what this storage
tank used to consist of? If so, please state that in the text. We just need to make sure there are no
contaminants entering the surface water through the ground on this potential mitigation site.
• Section 3.0 — third paragraph: Identify the year associated with the plantings consistent with what you have
under Section 4.0.
• Section 4.0 — why is there a "target density" of 320 trees and shrubs per acre? According to NCEEP's Guidelines
for Riparian Buffer Restoration, "Trees should be planted at a density sufficient to provide 320 trees per acre at
maturity. To achieve this density, approximately 436 (10x10 feet spacing) to 681 (8x8 feet spacing) trees per acre
should be planted initially. Shrubs should be planted at a density sufficient to provide 1,200 shrubs per acre ".

Please ensure that the target density on this parcel is consistent with the above guidance. It shall be the same
for both neuse buffer restoration and nutrient offset areas.
Please specify how success criteria is measured. Recommended text would be the following: "Success criteria
will be based on the survival of a minimum of 320 planted trees per acre following five years of monitoring ".
Section 5.0 — the RBMBI (Item 25) states that the 'financial assurances shall retire upon submittal of the as -built
report for each site ".
Please specify in this section, that a second method of financial assurance will be provided to cover the
monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation site for at period of 5 years.
You may also add the following statement which is consistent with what we are allowing for another bank parcel
under this same RBMBI (Rudolf).
"the performance bond /monitoring bond may be lowered, based on the adjusted cost to finish the monitoring,
on a case by case basis and only with DWQ approval of the monitoring reports."
Your RBMBI does not allow or disallow for this adjustment, therefore DWQ does not have a problem offering
this for this bank parcel.
• Section 6.0 —
• Please state the pounds of nitrogen expected in addition to the acreage. Please use 2,273.02 in the
calculation instead of 2,273. Even though it's a small difference, I will be asking Banks to use the
number exactly as it is indicated in the rules when submitting all new BPDPs for approval.
• Since this bank parcel is located outside of the Falls watershed, it shall not be used to offer phosphorus
nutrient offset credits. The Neuse River's management strategy only requires that nitrogen loading be
the controlled nutrient and allowed to be offset.
o Please replace the last sentence of the paragraph with the following text : "the exact amount of nutrient
offset mitigation potential (currently based on 2,273.02 Ibs of nitrogen /ac of riparian restoration) will be
included in the As -Built Report and on the corresponding credit ledger.
Please provide all figures and photos in color with the final BPDP
Figure 2: please enumerate the amount of Nutrient Offset Credits and Riparian Buffer Credits in acres. Please
apply the Buffer Clarification Memo #2008 -019 to your site for Ditch 2 and Ditch S. I have attached the
clarification memo to this email. If you feel this memo does not apply, please contact Amy Chapman with DWQ
919 - 807 -6400 to discuss.
• Figure 4: please zoom in closer to the site to give a better view of the crenulations on the parcel.
Thank you for your cooperation and if you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katie
Katie Merritt
Environmental Compliance Specialist & Nutrient Offset Coordinator
Wetlands & Stormwater Branch
Division of Water Quality
Work: 919- 807 -6371
Website: http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /swp /ws /webscape
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.

`'� Please consider the environment before printing this email.