20081473 Ver 4_Emails_20120327

Strickland, Bev
From: Merritt, Katie
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 1:23 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Wayne Co. Dev. BPDP Comments
Hi Bev,
Will you please add this conversation to DWQ 2008- 1473v4 under the Wayne Co. Development Alliance bank? I have
already printed myself a copy for the files.
Thank you0
Katie
From: Merritt, Katie
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:56 PM
To: 'Tommy Cousins'
Subject: RE: Wayne Co. Dev. BPDP Comments
Hi Tommy,
That is fine. If possible, please have McAdams show the direction of flow in the questionable stream you are intending
on keeping in the Nutrient /Buffer bank. When the BPDP goes to public notice, this will be a hot question I'm sure.
Therefore, by providing a map to me with the direction of flow in that stream, the DWQ can be comfortable with the
approval of that stream for 03020201. 1 expect the consultant will need to identify the flow of this stream onsite or use
other measures to make their determination. Please be as transparent in the content (text and maps) of the BPDP as
possible when describing this. I expect the BPDP to include information about the HUC boundary location in the text of
the document as well as shown on Figure 2.
Thank you,
katie
From: Tommy Cousins [mailto:tommy @ebxusa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:27 PM
To: Merritt, Katie
Subject: RE: Wayne Co. Dev. BPDP Comments
Katie, for the portion of the project that borders Neuse 02...1 have asked McAdams to cut the section approximately in
half and delete the northern half since it flows to Neuse 02 but include the southern half since it more likely stays in
Neuse 01. The area is so flat and its hard to tell if the HUC boundary is in the right place, but assuming it is then I think
what we are proposing is a good compromise. Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Tommy
From: Merritt, Katie [mailto:katie.merritt @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:16 PM
To: Tommy Cousins
Cc: Martin Hovis
Subject: Wayne Co. Dev. BPDP Comments
Hi Tommy,

I have reviewed the Wayne County Development Alliance Bank Parcel Development Package (DWQ# 2008- 1473v4) and
have the following comments and requests:
• Section 1.0
• Change, "Proposed stream buffer restoration activities..." to, "Proposed riparian restoration activities..."
—this is because the term "riparian" can be used to include both nutrient and buffer restoration areas,
while using the term "buffer" only refers to the riparian zone within the first 50 feet from a jurisdictional
stream.
• When referencing "stream buffer restoration ", "stream buffer mitigation ", "riparian buffer restoration"
etc., please identify if those areas are " Neuse buffers ", which are the areas within the first 50 feet of a
jurisdictional stream /waters of the State; or if they are just riparian restoration areas. Please make this
edit throughout the entire document.
Please refer to the riparian zone adjacent to non - jurisdictional stream features and ditches as "riparian"
and not "buffer" to identify only nutrient offset restoration since the Neuse buffer rules would not apply
to non - jurisdictional streams. Please make this edit throughout the entire document.
o 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.
• Section 2.2
o Please add a paragraph in this section that describes the adjacent land use (land adjacent to the Bank
Parcel). If it's agriculture, please describe the types of crops that have been cultivated. This request has
come recently from NRCS.
• Section 2.5
o Please add more detail as to whether the leaking has stopped and if there are any known soil and water
contamination issues from the leaks that have affected the streams /ditches on your bank parcel.
• Section 2.6
o Please note how restoration efforts will affect the floodplain /floodway
• Section 4.0
• If planting is anticipated for Spring 2012, DWQ does not support monitoring prior to the Fall 2012.
Please revise the text to support this comment.
• Please add similar text as the following: the first monitoring data for Phase I and Phase II shall not be
measured less than 5 months after site work is completed. (if site work isn't completed until the Fall
2012, the first annual monitoring report shall be submitted in Fall 2013)
• If Phase I and Phase II are planted at different intervals, you may have to prepare 2 monitoring reports:
one representing Phase I and one representing Phase II. Or, you may have one monitoring report
representing both phases, but that monitoring report data will have to be collected after site work is
completed on both phases and shall be collected no less than 5 months after all site work is completed.
If EBX chooses to specify any of this in the BPDP, that is their choice. However, this comment will be
documented and future reviews will be based on these comments to the BPDP.
• 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.
o 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."
o 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 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.
• 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 ledgers.
• Second paragraph: Please modify the following text: Phase I consists of Parcel Number 2598449002 and
will provide approximately 32.57 acres of riparian restoration. Phase I will contain approximately 1.02
acres (44,431 ft2) of riparian buffer credits and..."
• Second paragraph: Phase II consists of Parcel Numbers.....and will provide approximately 37.06 acres of
riparian restoration. Phase II will contain approximately 5.45 acres (237,402 ft2) of riparian buffer
credits and..."
Figure 2
• DWQ determined that Feature 03 as identified on the onsite stream determination, was a jurisdictional
stream and subject to the Neuse Buffer rules. Figure 2 of the BPDP shows that Feature 03 is a ditch.
Please revise the figure to be consistent with the onsite stream determination that was made by DWQ
(make this a blue stream on your map and call it a stream rather than a ditch)
• A portion of the purposed nutrient offset on this site is located in HUC 03020202 (near Feature 04).
DWQ needs to discuss the nutrient offset credit for this portion with you before approving the BPDP.
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 Bank 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.