20210306 Ver 2_DWR AsBuilt Review - Thunder Swamp II_20221123

Baker, Caroline D
From: Merritt, Katie
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 5:28 PM
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: DWR AsBuilt Review - Thunder Swamp II
Please file email thread below, naming the file same as the subject of the email. File in 2021-0306v2
From: Merritt, Katie
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 5:27 PM
To: Jamey McEachran <[e-mail]>
Subject: DWR AsBuilt Review - Thunder Swamp II
Hey Jamey,
I have finalized my review of the Thunder Swamp II As -Built Report submitted to DWR by EBX on August 11,
2022. As a result of the review, DWR has the following comments that need to be addressed:
1. The report is lacking in detail and does not include the following information, which is required in the
UMBI:
a. Signed & Sealed survey - the survey provided is inadequate and does not represent a
professional survey, signed & sealed by a licensed surveyor; Instead, EBX provided a "Figure 2"
titled "As -Built Map" prepared by RES. EBX needs to include a survey that has been prepared by
a licensed surveyor that supports the Figure 2 included in the report. Additionally, widths
adjacent to DJ4, where less than 50' cannot be confirmed with Figure 2. Without a signed &
sealed survey, DWR cannot approve the credit assets presented in the Project Credit Table.
b. No documentation was included confirming that the DMS Thunder Swamp project was
completed, or that it has been secured with a conservation easement.
c. Details surrounding bank stabilization efforts that were required in the BPDP were not noted. See
BPDP section 4.2.4. Were these efforts performed? Explain
d. The planting plan does not include the seeding that was used. Explain
2. Section 2 of the report details the methods intended to be used to measure the performance standards
of the bank's riparian buffer credits and nutrient offset credits. This section is not compliant with the
UMBI or approved BPDP for this bank. DWR does not know what the "Vegetation Table Shiny Tool" is,
nor does DWR approve this tool for measuring performance standards for this bank. As indicated in the
approved UMBI and BPDP, EBX will need to record data using the CVS tool. In response to this item, EBX
needs to confirm their understanding of the appropriate method/s for measuring vegetation
performance standards and acknowledge that the Year 1-5 monitoring reports will comply with the
approved UMBI and BPDP on monitoring expectations.
3. The Project Credit Table depicts the same nutrient offset and riparian buffer total area (ft2) and
associated credits as provided in the BPDP. Is this correct?
Please provide a detailed and formal response to all items above, including all necessary documentation, and
submit to DWR via the electronic submittal form. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Thank you,
Katie
Katie Merritt
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Work Cell: 919-500-0683
Website: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality_permitting/4Ol-buffer-
germ itti ng/nutrient-offset-buffer-mitigation-progra m
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617