20090751 Ver 1_EEP Memo_Beamon Assets 10-26-09_20091130

os 5tem
1 ellellt
PROGRAM
October 26, 2009
To: John Dorney — DWQ
FROM: Marc Recktenwald — EEP
RE: Riparian Buffer Sit Evaluation for
Beamon's Run site- Greene County (Meuse 03)
EEP #24
DWQ #2009 -014
QR@ 9oeO�
NOV 3 0 2009
DENR • AIATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
By memo dated July 8, 2009 (attached), Cyndi Karoly - NCDENR -DWQ - 401 Oversight
and Express Permitting Unit, requested that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) clarify
the amount(s) of Riparian Buffer Mitigation and/or Nutrient Offset Credit the subject site would
be able to provide. The memo identified the primary areas of concern as follows:
1. EEP must delimit all of the mature buffer areas on the site and make certain that they
are removed from the ledger.
Response: The mature trees within the 200 foot buffer is part of the excluded areas on the
attached map.
2. The discrepancy between the amount of buffer credit shown on the EEP ledger and on
the 2003 monitoring report must be reconciled and explained. DWQ shall be copied
with a map showing mitigation locations.
Response: The amount of buffer credit in the 2003 monitoring report (5.8 ac) is based on a
50 -ft buffer width in the March 2000 restoration plan (5,050 ft x 50 ft = 5.8 ac). We do not
know whether the restoration plan was ever finalized, but believe it was not because it
contains apparent errors —it includes areas marked as planted that were clearly never planted.
The 2003 monitoring report is inaccurate documentation and is also incomplete. The amount
of buffer credit shown on the EEP ledger (in IMS; 12.29 ac) is based on a 200 -ft buffer
width, excluding areas that were not planted (mature buffer) or were encroached upon
(farming or mowing). The amount of buffer credit will be amended to add previously
excluded mown encroachment areas that are regenerating and farmed encroachment areas if
they are replanted (see also #5 below).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, N( 27699 -1652 / 919415 -0476 / www.nceep.net

3. EEP must present a written case as to why this site should be included on the
"Grandfathered List ".
Response: Apparently there was miscommunication internal to EEP regarding this project
that resulted in its being inadvertently omitted from the "Grandfathered List "; it should have
been included. The project was instituted and constructed before DWQ's cut -off of October
7, 2007. The restoration plan for this project is dated March 2000, and the project was
planted in Nov/Dec 2000.
4. EEP must present written evidence as to whether beavers were present on site in 2000
in order to justify the buffer measurement from the beaver pond edge rather than the
top of stream bank.
Response: EEP staff and the monitoring firm measured the buffer width from the present
beaver pond edge in keeping with the DWQ Buffer Clarification #2007 -005.
http:// h2o.enr.state.nc.us /ncwetiands/ documents /Beaverlmpoundments.pdf)
S. Areas that have been cut will need to have access permanently restricted and replanted
if the planted woody stems are not present. Documentation of the presence of these
stems will be needed if replanting is not contemplated.
Response: Site access has been permanently restricted through the conservation easement.
We have also asked landowners to stop encroachment (which they have agreed to do and
done so far), and marked the conservation easement boundaries. We will replant any farmed
encroachment area within the 200 ft buffer. We do not plan to replant those mown
encroachment areas where trees are regenerating at a density of the minimum of 320 stems
per acre, but will document regenerating woody stems as described in #6, below.
6. EEP will need to conduct five years of monitoring on the site since no monitoring has
been done.
Response: This site is nine years old. EEP ask DWQ to consider allowing EEP to monitor
the entire site once to document stem density for the entire site and monitoring the replanted
encroachment areas for three more years during which time EEP suggests documenting
regeneration of trees in mown areas with photographs.
7. Please be aware that areas slated for wetland mitigation credit shall not be counted as
buffer mitigation credit.
Response: EEP will not seek wetland credits for this area. If DWQ allows the project to be
added to the "Grandfathered List ", EEP will add the area within 200 ft to the calculated
buffer area.
2

Final riparian buffer acreage as per Figure:
0.24 acres river birch
0.15 acres cypress
3.7 acres long leaf
8.2 acres oak mix
12.29 acres
Based on the above information, the Debit Ledger will list this site with 12.29
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Units.
Cc: Cyndi Karoly — NCDENR -DWQ - 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit

ff " A a
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
July 8, 2009
TO: Suzanne Klimek — NCEEP
Jeff Jurek - NCEEP
FROM: Cyndi Karoly - 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
RE: Buffer Mitigation Site Evaluations
Beamon's Run (Barnhill Farm) Buffer Site — Greene County (Neuse 03)
DWQ # 2009 -0014 (EEP Project ID # 24)
Site Visit: 6/30/09 JRD
Contact Person: John Dorney
The Beamon's Run Buffer Mitigation Site includes buffer restoration along Beamon's Run and Contentnea Creek.
According to the monitoring report, 5.8 acres of buffer mitigation credits were created by planting a wooded buffer along
Beamon's Run and Contentnea Creek. However according to the EEP ledger, 10.9 acres of buffer credit are available on the
site. Kevin Miller and Jessica Kemp from EEP as well as Kyle Barnes and Chris Pullinger from DWQ were also present on
site.
The site was planted in 2000 but only has one year of monitoring (2003) due to confusion on the part of EEP and its
contractors. The monitoring report was very limited and no monitoring data were collected in 2003. The 2003 report was
basically a visual inspection of part of the site.
Several significant problems were observed at this site which must be corrected. First, most of the mature buffer
has been removed from the ledger but small portions still remain. These must be delimited and removed from the ledger.
Second, the discrepancy between the ledger (10.9 acres) and the monitoring report (5.8 acres) must be reconciled and
reported to DWQ with accompanying maps. Third, this site is not on the "Grandfathered List" which would make it possible
to get credits to 200 feet. EEP must make a case in writing why this site should be considered for inclusion on this list.
Fourth, it is not clear whether the buffer measurement should be from the top of bank of Beamon's Run or from the edge of
today's beaver ponds. The as -built plan only shows one beaver pond at the top of the segment. If EEP can present
convincing evidence that the beaver ponds were present at site planting and construction in 2000, then the buffer
measurement can be made from that line. Otherwise, the buffer width will be measured from the stream as shown on the as
built plan. Fifth, areas that have had trees cut for hunting lines or vehicular access will need to be replanted if sufficient
woody stems do not remain from the earlier planting. Sixth, since no monitoring data have been collected on the site, five
years of monitoring will be required for the site.
ITEMS TO ADDRESS: First, EEP must delimit all of the mature buffer areas on the site and make certain that they
are removed from the ledger.
Second, the discrepancy between the amount of buffer credit shown on the EEP ledger and on the 2003
monitoring report must be reconciled and explained. DWQ shall be copied with a map showing mitigation locations.
Third, EEP must present a written case as to why this site should be included on the "Grandfathered List ".
Fourth, EEP must present written evidence as to whether beavers were present on site in 2000 in order to
justify the buffer measurement from the beaver pond edge rather than the top of stream bank.
Fifth, areas that have been cut will need to have access permanently restricted and replanted if the planted
woody stems are not present. Documentation of the presence of these stems will be needed if replanting is not
contemplated.
Sixth, EEP will need to conduct five years of monitoring on the site since no monitoring has been done.
Finally, please be aware that areas slated for wetland mitigation credit shall not be counted as buffer
mitigation credit.
cc: Matt Matthews
Kevin Miller, EEP
Jessica Kemp, EEP
401 OversightlExpress Review Permitting Unit One
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650 NorthCarohna
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 '! //
Phone: 919 - 733 -17861 FAX: 919 - 733 -6893 v!atural�ly
Internet: hftp: Il h2o,enr.state,nc.uslncwetlands/
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer