The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20201941 Ver 2_DWR Comment Summary_LRW BPDP_20220323 From:Merritt, Katie To:Baker, Caroline D Subject:FW: DWR Review - Little River Weaver BPDP Date:Wednesday, March 23, 2022 4:38:21 PM Attachments:DWR Comment Summary_LRW BPDP.PDF File attached PDF and the email chain below. thank you From: Merritt, Katie Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 4:38 PM To: Andrea Eckardt <aeckardt@wildlandseng.com> Cc: Wojoski, Paul A <Paul.Wojoski@ncdenr.gov> Subject: DWR Review - Little River Weaver BPDP Hey Andrea, Pursuant to Titles 15A NCAC 02B .0295 and 15A NCAC 02B .0703 (e), a provider shall submit a project plan proposal to the Division for review and approval that includes specific elements of the project. On November 23, 2021, Wildlands Holdings III, LLC (Wildands) submitted a Bank Parcel Development Package (Plan) for the Little River Weaver Site, to the Division, for review and approval. According to the initial review by DWR staff of the subject Plan, some elements were either not provided, not explained thoroughly, not accurate or lacking in sufficient information. Therefore, until DWR receives an updated Plan addressing all comments and edits provided in the attached 1) comment summary and 2) PDF version of the document itself, DWR cannot finalize the review of the Plan or issue an approval of the Plan. In an effort to be as efficient as possible at providing comments to Providers during this busy time, I have provided my comments in a different format. Attached are the comments & edits provided within the actual PDF of a condensed Plan (without Appendices) as well as a comment summary. When Wildands is ready to submit their final project Plan, please include a summary of all Wildands’ responses to the DWR comments acknowledging how Wildands addressed the comments. Please upload the final Plan using our Mitigation Project Information Upload Form through this link: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Mitigation_Information_Upload . Please note the DWR ID# 2020- 1941 (version 2) on all electronic submissions for this project. Thank you for your patience during this time and if you have any difficulty reading though the comments or edits please let me know. Katie Katie Merritt Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Office: 919-707-3637 Work Cell: 919-500-0683 Website: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permitting/401-buffer- permitting-branch 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. Katie Merritt Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Office: 919-707-3637 Work Cell: 919-500-0683 https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permitting/401-buffer- Website: permitting-branch 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. Summary of Comments on BPDP Review_LittleRiverWeaver.pdf Page: 1 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:17:06 PM DWR ID# is 2020-1941v2 Page: 3 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:20:02 PM The "Project Credit Table" should be all one Table, not split into Table 8 and Table 9. Modify the table to be on one page and referred to as only Table 8 Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:17:38 PM Change the title to Figure 7 (see comments on Figure) Page: 4 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:21:00 PM Edit section 1.0 to speak to the Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (not the MBI) since we discussed combining this site into the Cox Pond & Oberry UMBI. Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:23:06 PM "Parcel" should be used throughout the BPDP to represent the bank site. However, "Project" and "parcel" are used and thus is becomes confusing what is be referred to. The MBI refers to the site as a "Bank Parcel", therefore "Parcel" or "Bank Parcel" should be used instead of "Project". correct errors accordingly. Number: 3Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:24:03 PM need to include the effective date of Rule 0703 as well. Be sure to say "Proposed UMBI" so that it is known that the UMBI has not been signed into affect yet when it goes on Public Notice Number: 4Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:25:04 PM By discontinuing agricultural practices and Number: 5Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:25:27 PM it Page: 5 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:25:43 PM adjacent Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:25:53 PM the newly Number: 3Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:27:27 PM it does not state the there are forested areas along UT 1, however UT1 is shown on the Credit Table as having Preservation areas. I did not see the Preservation Areas shown on the supporting figures, nor was it mentioned in the Viability Letter. Explain and provide supporting documentation if Preservation is supposed to be included for UT1. Page: 6 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:28:24 PM Change the title from "Buffer" to "Bank Parcel Attributes" or "Parcel" depending on what was decided for Section 1.0 Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:29:03 PM it is preferred to only show the 8-digit HUC since that is what defines the service area for the credits generated in this table. Page: 7 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:32:18 PM the viability letter cites "Non-subject" streams, not "Subject" streams and refers to (o)(4) in the rule, not (o)(5). Please correct these errors. Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:36:26 PM Indicate what feature this alternative mitigation is being proposed. I am unsure whether it should just be UT2 or also UT1 based on conflicting information provided in the BPDP between Text and supporting figures. Explain. Number: 3Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:32:49 PM Indicate what feature this alternative mitigation is being proposed. Number: 4Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:35:11 PM add another bullet here to explain how the ditch is meeting the rest of the criteria in Item (o) regarding perpetual protection of the ditch, no maintenance, how it meets the connectivity to Int stream, etc and then reference Figure 3 since that's where the easement line is shown. Page: 9 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:38:53 PM Figure 7 illustrates the "Buffer Credit map". Do you need another map that represents the overall "conceptual design for the Parcel"? Also note, that Figure 7 needs a different title to adequately represent the credits generated by the Parcel. Page: 10 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:41:21 PM another area of the BPDP where UT1 is not cited as having forested areas. Explain Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:39:59 PM Why is ripping not being proposed? Usually long-term agricultural uses result in compacted soils, making it difficult for trees to grow without ripping the soils. Explain. Number: 3Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:40:47 PM with a conservation easement along with the rest of the Parcel. Number: 4Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:42:33 PM need more details in this section, including: specific minimum and maximum widths on feature types as well as a table that includes species intended to be part of the temporary and permanent seed mix. Page: 11 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:45:12 PM Despite citing that planted areas will include those areas identified for credits, it is still necessary to show exactly where planted areas will be. Figure 7 shows areas that are described as "non credit areas" but are still likely to be planted. Therefore, show the Planted Area on Figure 7. Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:45:53 PM add that the activities that have to be completed before the site visit also include adequately marking the boundaries of the conservation easement. Number: 3Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:47:13 PM also add that the plots will be representative of both nutrient offset credit areas and buffer mitigation credit areas Number: 4Author: kymerrittSubject: Cross-OutDate: 3/23/2022 3:47:43 PM Number: 5Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:47:35 PM performance standards used to Number: 6Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:47:50 PM U Number: 7Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:48:01 PM performance standards Number: 8Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:48:21 PM performance standards Page: 12 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:50:16 PM use this section to explain how the Conservation Easement is designed to ensure Ditch D remains directly hydrologically connected to Little Buffalo. Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:50:36 PM and will be installed Number: 3Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:51:20 PM use numbers to describe the acreage for buffer credit and also include the square footage Number: 4Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:53:26 PM in order to confirm that diffused flow meets the memo referenced here, please show the ditches that extend beyond the CE boundary and reference the supporting figure here. I cannot tell that there are ditches that continue beyond the CE boundary above A, C & E without this additional information provided. If no ditches are present beyond the CE boundary above these features, then non diffused flow is likely not present and deductions not required. Page: 13 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:54:11 PM consolidate Table 8 & 9 into one table as represented on the DWR website. Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:54:23 PM Some of the Number: 3Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:55:08 PM while it describes UT1, UT2 and Ditch B, the rest of the ditches are left out of the description and should be included. Number: 4Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:56:05 PM add a note that a survey will be done and will be submitted with the asbuilt report, which is when exact area/credits will be determined Number: 5Author: kymerrittSubject: Inserted TextDate: 3/23/2022 3:56:20 PM U Page: 14 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:00:52 PM As indicated in previous comments, DWR needs additional information to confirm the Diffused Flow deductions reported here. Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:25:22 PM Comments are provided on Figure 7 and thus, this table needs to be corrected to address those comments. Number: 3Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:01:01 PM Remove Ditch B from the 0-100' row and create a new row for Ditch B to include the ft2 within the 50-100' area. In the Feature Name column, show as "Ditch B (50-100')" since the Min-Max column doesn't offer you an option for 50-100'/ This is important to adequately represent where Nutrients are being credited off Ditch B and to ensure no double dipping in the Total Area numbers. Number: 4Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:02:02 PM provide supporting documention of Preservation areas along UT1. What about preservation potential along Little Buffalo Creek within the 10' easement? The width, when measured perpendicular and landward from Little Buffalo, meets the minimum width requirement even though the CE width is small. But it may be too small to included after the 10:1 ratio. Thoughts? Page: 15 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:03:04 PM since the UMBI provided a "general" credit release schedule and implies it could be different for sites proposed under the UMBi, the BPDP needs to include a Credit Release schedule specific for this site. Add that table here. Page: 19 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:03:41 PM specify this is the service area for RBC and NOC Page: 20 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:04:10 PM include the stream origin points on all figures. Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:13:13 PM as requested in previous comments, show all ditches that extend beyond the CE boundary. Text stated that ditches A, C and E were affected by the non-diffused flow memo, however only one "non-project ditch" is shown and that is on Ditch A. Explain. Page: 24 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:11:12 PM explain "No Credit" here since not all areas are removed from credit due to the same reasons. Number: 2Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:10:26 PM add something to depict "Planted Areas" Number: 3Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:06:15 PM measurements off UT2 are measured incorrectly. They should be measured perpendicular and landward, no radius allowed on UT2 in this scenario. Update all credit tables, text and maps accordingly. Number: 4Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:19:45 PM no credits are allowed to be generated where overland flow is intercepted by the pond, viability letter stated no credit was viable around the pond since it is not directly hydrologically connected to a Stream; the radius measured off the ditch origin cannot be used in this scenario since there is a feature above the ditch that is not viable for riparian restoration to generate credit. Number: 5Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:05:04 PM show the Ditch origin point below the pond Number: 6Author: kymerrittSubject: PencilDate: 3/23/2022 4:23:48 PM no credit to be generated within this area since it represents riparian areas adjacent to a feature that is not viable for credits per the viability letter. Number: 7Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:11:52 PM title needs to be changed. this map is showing more than buffer credit determination Page: 25 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 4:14:34 PM address comments made on other figures here as well. Page: 29 Number: 1Author: kymerrittSubject: Sticky NoteDate: 3/23/2022 3:31:21 PM there is only one photo representing the landuse conditions within a reasonable timeframe from when the site viability letter was issued in August. Include more photos of riparian conditions that are taken after the site visit by DWR & corresponding letter