20191692 Ver 4_BPDP_DWRcommentSummary_20210203

Summary of Comments on Raleigh BPDP_DWR edits.pdf
Page: 2
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/1/2021 2:53:12 PM
the DWR ID for this Bank is 2019-1692 v4
Number: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/1/2021 2:52:18 PM

Page: 3
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:03:13 PM
General Comments for Phase A:
1. Remove 8B; it is not viable for any crediting per the Site Viability letter
2. How is RS complying with the note in the Viability Letter for Pond 2, which states that RS needs controlled access of the dam?
3. As proposed, it does not appear that the construction of the gas line on Phase A will impact the Bank site. Therefore, DWR does not think it necessary
to wait until gas line construction is complete in order to begin implementation of the restoration plan.
4. Per 15A NCAC 02B 0295 (o)(7), RS needs to provide a delineation of the watershed draining to each Ephemeral Channel proposed for buffer credit.
With the documentation RS provides, indicate within the text whether the areas proposed for mitigation comply with that part of (o)(7) concerning the
contributing drainage area.
5. There are active bio-solid land applications within Phase A CE boundary. Therefore, the NPDES Permittee must get documentation from the permitting
agency (Non -Discharge Permitting Branch within Division of Water Resources) that removal of these land areas from land application will not cause non-
compliance with their NPDES permit.
6. Other comments & edits on Phase B are provided on the Credit Table & corresponding Figures.
Number: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 10:14:40 AM
General Comments for Phase B:
1. The proposed CE boundary of Phase B is largely different than what was provided with the Viability assessment and therefore, DWR expects RS to
broaden the easement boundary around Main Tributary 4, 2C to confluence of 4 and the ephemeral channel 6A to include both sides of the stream
instead of just one -side. A minimum 50' is appropriate to compare with the maps RS provided to DWR for the Viability Assessment. If the CE boundary is
broadened to include these riparian areas , then DWR would suggest that RS combine the crediting of Phase B with Phase C, which would increase the
total eligible areas for Preservation credits.
Keep in mind, that DWR allows 5:1 Pres. credit on Ephemerals (& other Non -subject streams) instead of 10:1, in order to incentivize the protection of the
riparian areas on both sides of the Ephemeral channels. Additionally, DWR also allows the "Total Area" of Ephemerals to be included when calculating the
total creditable area of Preservation, which is also another incentive that DWR added to the Credit Table Template in order to promote the protection of
more Preservation -worthy riparian areas along streams.
2. Since all features drain directly to the Neuse River onsite, DWR recommends PHase B & Phase C be combined but can still be referred to as B & C (just
combine the Credit Table into 1). DWR's recommendation for combining these phases are also for reasons noted in Comment 1, and therefore, B & C
would be reported in 1 monitoring report, have 1 credit release schedule and 1 set of ledgers. Phase A would still be a separate Phase.
3. As noted in the Viability Assessment letter from DWR, riparian areas adjacent to 4B cannot be used as a Restoration Site until after gas line is
constructed and construction easements are no longer needed. Also, as noted in the letter, the gas line is proposed to impact most of the channel of 4A,
and therefore, RS will need to wait until this part of the pipeline has completed construction before DWR can reassess the eligibility of buffer and/or
nutrient offset credits adjacent to 4a and the upper reaches of 4b. The riparian areas proposed along 4b below the Duke Power Easement, should not be
impacted by the gas line, and therefore, restoration efforts do not have to wait on the completion of construction of the gas line. It is recommended that
RS reconsider including 4a and the small reach of 4b (above the Duke power easement) in this Bank.
4. Per 15A NCAC 02B 0295 (o)(7), RS needs to provide a delineation of the watershed draining to each Ephemeral Channel proposed for buffer credit. With
the documentation RS provides, indicate within the text whether the areas proposed for mitigation comply with that part of (o)(7) concerning the contributing
drainage area.
5. There are active biosolid land applications within Phase B CE boundary. Therefore, the NPDES Permittee must get documentation from the permitting
agency (Non -Discharge Permitting Branch within Division of Water Resources) that removal of these land areas from land application will not cause non-
compliance with their NPDES permit.
6. other comments & edits on Phase B are provided on the Credit Table & corresponding Figures.
QNumber: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 10:15:32 AM
General Comments on Phase C:
1. Feature 6 is a ditch and only viable for nutrient offsets. Remove buffer credit areas. Remove Preservation credits and show as Preservation off the Neuse
instead.
2. Explain the necessity of the easement break on Feature 5C. This was not shown on the maps provided with the Site Viability Assessment. Is RS gaining
controlled access along the dam?
3. As indicated in the Viability Assessment letter the CE of 1A (which includes Pond 1) is required to include all of Pond 1 to 1 B to be creditable. This
includes the dam. Modify the CE to include the pond.
4. The dirt path on Feature 1A needs a workable culvert (is there one already?) and should be deeded with the CE. Deeded access by City of Raleigh can
be noted in the CE. DWR needs assurance that If the culvert is compromised in the future and disconnects the hydrologic connectivity of the upstream
portion of the ephemeral channel to its downstream segment, then the Long Term steward can require the culvert be replaced.
5. Crediting proposed adjacent to Feature 2B, 2C and 2D is difficult to discern. Provide a zoomed in version of these segments or include on a separate
figure.
6. Feature 3A is supposed to have an access crossing per the Site Viability letter and is supposed to be removed from the creditable acreage. Show this
access and remove from credit.
7. Per 15A NCAC 02B 0295 (o)(7), RS needs to provide a delineation of the watershed draining to each Ephemeral Channel proposed for buffer credit. With
the documentation RS provides, indicate within the text whether the areas proposed for mitigation comply with that part of (o)(7) concerning the contributing
drainage area.
8. There are active biosolid land applications within Phase B CE boundary. Therefore, the NPDES Permittee must get documentation from the permitting
agency (Non -Discharge Permitting Branch within Division of Water Resources) that removal of these land areas from land application will not cause non-
compliance with their NPDES permit.
9. other comments & edits on Phase C are provided on the Credit Table & corresponding Figures.

Page: 5
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 10:20:40 AM
The MBI references credit types on this Bank as "Riparian Buffer Credits" or RBC and "Nutrient Offset Credits" or NOC. Therefore, please match the
terminology in the BPDP with that of the MBI template by changing RBM to RBC throughout, even on figures.

Page: 6
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 10:23:36 AM
Confirm that City of Raleigh is allowed to have a conservation easement within areas designated as Active Land application sites. As indicated within the
General Comments of A, B, and C, written correspondence from the regulatory authority (DWR) is required for this confirmation.
Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 10:24:10 AM
Contact

Page: 7
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 10:24:52 AM
Number: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 10:25:44 AM
QNumber: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 10:24:49 AM
Remove staff names and just use "DWR representatives"
T Number: 4 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 10:25:01 AM
stream
Number: 5 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 10:25:34 AM
and onsite site viability assessments for mitigation potential
Number: 6Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 10:25:41 AM

Page: 12
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 10:31:32 AM

Page: 14
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 2:36:38 PM
Feature 4A and upper reach of 4B due to their close proximity to the gas line construction zone, may be impacted, and thus RS will need to wait until
construction is complete for DWR will to re -access these two features to determine their eligibility.
QNumber: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 2:38:44 PM
Add a statement regarding the permittee and if they have received regulatory approval to remove these areas from their permit. Add the appendix where
that correspondence is included.

Page: 15
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:04:10 PM
why is this pond going to continue to be "managed" for agricultural if RS is wanting to make it into a bank? Explain what "managed" implies.
QNumber: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:35:57 PM
For Feature 1/Pond 1 of Phase C, the only entity to be providing future maintenance of the Ephemeral Pond, should be the Provider. Controlled access
can be deeded to City of Raleigh, but the Long Term steward is supposed to protect the integrity of the ponds and their outfalls. This pond is ephemeral,
and is only viable for credit if the entire pond, dam, and downstream Ephemeral are protected within the CE.
therefore, the pond dam should have controlled access by the PRovider, not allowing vehicles or cattle or any other use inconsistent with the CE. It needs to
be included in the Conservation Easement boundary and protected in perpetuity in order to maintain the hydrological connectivity of the pond with the rest
of the ephemeral system to its Intermittent connection. This connection of the pond below the dam outlet to the entire E/I system of Feature 1 is very
important, considering this connection was the only reason the Pond & the Ephemeral channel upstream of the pond were considered in -line and viable for
riparian restoration for credits. Explain what efforts will be done to secure controlled and protected access of the dam within the CE.
Number: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:37:04 PM
For Feature 1A of Phase C, The farm path must always have a clear pathway via a culvert in order not to disrupt the hydrologic connectivity of 1A to 1 B,
since 1A is an ephemeral channel and it's only connection to 1B is through the farm path culvert. Therefore, the Provider needs to have controlled access
such that they can maintain the culvert if ever needed. What efforts will be taken to secure this controlled access?

Page: 16
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/3/2021 1:15:20 PM
how will fescue be treated? it is present throughout the site.
T Number: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 3:39:58 PM
, ephemeral channels and agricultural ditches.
LI Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 3:39:33 PM
areas

Page: 17
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:46:08 PM
Isn't the non-functioning agricultural crossing on Feature 3 really big? What will some of the implications be if you remove it?
QNumber: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:46:42 PM
modify timeline.

Page: 18
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:49:35 PM
except along Feature 1 of Phase C?
Number: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:48:53 PM
where is the Farm Crossing located along Feature 3? On Figure 8B, it only identifies "Farm Debris"

Page: 19
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/3/2021 1:08:08 PM
break this down by Phase
QNumber: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:50:44 PM
Add that RS will ensure clear marking and signage of CE boundary where it runs adjacent and close to utility and greenway easements.
JNumber: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 3:52:47 PM
As -Built Site visit by DWR.
JNumber: 4Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 3:51:36 PM

Page: 20
T.
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 3:54:16 PM
Number: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 3:54:20 PM
riparian
QNumber: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:55:31 PM
Add that plot placement will adequately represent riparian buffer credit and nutrient offset credit areas.
QNumber: 4Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 3:56:43 PM
this paragraph references the Tar Pamlico rules. REmove and replace with the Neuse rules.
T.
Number: 5Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 3:57:19 PM
subject streams to
Number: 6Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 3:57:41 PM
a nutrient offset and riparian buffer

Page: 21
T.
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 5:07:01 PM
Number: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 5:07:15 PM
As required in the MBI
QNumber: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/3/2021 1:23:04 PM
Summarize how the proposal complies with 1) all of 0295 (o)(7) for the ephemera's on each phase, 2) all of 0295 (o)(4&5) for Preservation on each phase.
Make sure to include the information about watershed & %caps where applicable.
Is RS going to combine Phase B&C? If so, make sure to break down the %caps that way rather than how it currently is shown as separate.
Number: 4Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 4:27:50 PM
nutrient offset or buffer
Number: 5Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:17:09 PM
— credits
]Number: 6Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:17:12 PM
C
Number: 7Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 4:17:34 PM
Number: 8Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:17:53 PM
of streams, ephemeral channels and agricultural ditches.
QNumber: 9Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:20:58 PM
This statement is incorrect. The total area is measured to the nearest whole square foot. See Table Template.
Number: 10 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:22:50 PM
1
on this Bank Parcel
Number: 11 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:23:26 PM
Some
Number: 12 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:23:33 PM
Restoration
Number: 13 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:24:36 PM
on this site
Number: 14 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:24:48 PM
upon approval from DWR.
Number: 15 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/3/2021 1:23:35 PM
widths
Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/3/2021 1:24:03 PM
from top of bank
QNumber: 16 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:25:51 PM
we don't refer to "nutrient offset " as "mitigation". therefore, please refrain from using this term to refer to both credit types.
Number: 17 Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 4:29:18 PM
Number: 18 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:25:58 PM
RBC
Number: 19
Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:26:40 PM
written
Number: 20 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:26:49 PM
conversion and
Number: 21 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:26:34 PM
comply with criteria to also be convertible to NOC.
QNumber: 22 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:28:50 PM
one to account for riparian buffer preservation credits,
Number: 23
— three (3)
QNumber: 24
Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:28:19 PM
Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:31:04 PM
Comments from page 21 continued on next page

Reference the November 2019 letter here and that all conversions will comply with that process. You may add the specific credit conversion ratios to make
it easier to reference down the road.
Number: 25 Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 2/2/2021 4:28:59 PM
Number: 26 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:28:27 PM
restoration
Number: 27 Author: kymerritt Subject: Inserted Text Date: 2/2/2021 4:32:11 PM
— accurately depicted
�—_ni Number: 28 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:31:50 PM
update each table to reflect corrections made to tables after comments are addressed.

Page: 24
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:36:06 PM
correct to 03020201 and remove the Falls Lake WS. Buffer credit from a non -falls bank cannot be used to mitigate for impacts within the Falls Lake. The
service area for this Bank is the same for both Buffer & Nutrient OFfset credits

Page: 28
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:40:37 PM
There are active biosolid land applications within all 3 proposed phases where the mitigation bank areas are proposed. Therefore, the City must get
documentation from permitting agency to remove these areas and confirmation that they will be in compliance with their permit if they allow a CE on it.

Page: 30
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:48:49 PM
Label all the features

Page: 31
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:48:52 PM
Label all the features

Page: 32
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:49:07 PM
Label all the features
QNumber: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:52:34 PM
will it be even possible to remove such a large path & culvert without impacting too much of the stream and buffers?
—_ro- Number: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:51:04 PM
add the width of all farm path crossings that are expected to remain.

Page: 33
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:13:34 PM
is this a farmpath? is it going to be removed?

Page: 35
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:16:05 PM
differentiate nutrient offset by adding hatch marks to Zone C. Do this for all Figures.
QNumber: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:18:41 PM
edit to say "riparian restoration for Buffer Credit" for Zone A & B.
QNumber: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:25:02 PM
show all of the Ephemerals separate from intermittent as shown in Figure 6A and include the origin points.
How is RS able to measure the restoration areas and preservation areas adjacent to Ephemerals without actually showing them as different width
categories??
Make sure the AsBuilt surveys out those areas separate from Intermittent width categories
*Number: 4Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:54:18 PM
change RBM to RBC
QNumber: 5Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 4:54:06 PM
Remove 8B

Page: 36
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:35:47 PM
carry over same edits as provided in Figure 8A.
QNumber: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:27:16 PM
either change the color of TOB or change the color of Phase B since they are both blue and difficult to differentiate along some features.
QNumber: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:31:12 PM
after labeling the Ephemerals as requested also in Figure 8A, i should be able to see where TOB is.
—_ro- Number:4Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:29:46 PM
as noted in General Comments„ please place a CE on both sides of 6A, Main Trib 4 and 3. RS shoudl be able to get more eligible Pres. credits when
combining with C as recommended.

Page: 37
QNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:35:38 PM
carry over same edits as provided in Figure 8A.
*Number: 2Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:36:29 PM
on this phase you have a ditch. need to add a label for ditch TOB as well as for Eph. TOB
QNumber: 3Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:34:13 PM
where the Asset Table shows a certain width as being devoted as NOC, do not show as buffer and vice versa. There are a few times I've seen this. Just
double check to make sure the Table matches the corresponding figures.
QNumber: 4Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:32:53 PM
this feature is a ditch and should only be shown as Nutrient Offset Credit. Preservation credits should only be measured off the TOB of the Neuse.
Number: 5Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:33:12 PM
add label 6A
QNumber: 6Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/2/2021 5:35:10 PM
there is a lot going on with Feature 2. Add another figure to show Feature 2 zoomed in so that I can confirm the widths are measured correctly off the
streams and not the wetlands.