DWR Comment Summary_UpperMusselBPDP

ID#* 20221231
Select Reviewer:
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 09/09/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/8/2022
Version * 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project: *
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
CompanytOwner: * Restoration Systems
Contact Name: *
Barrett Jenkins
Project Information
Yes No
Email Address: *
bienki [e-mail]
Project Type: ❑MS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Upper Musselshell Nutrient Offset BPDP part
of R5 N04 UNOBI
County: Janes
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Upper Musselshell Draft BPDP 9.7.2022.pdf 39.7MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Barrett Jenkins
Signature:
4S'"z t tom` ! H&WJ

BANK PARCEL DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE
UPPER MUSSELSHELL NUTRIENT OFFSET BANK PARCEL
NEUSE RIVER BASIN
❑WR ID#: XXXX-XXXX 0 0
Bank Parcel Sponsor
Restoration Systems, LLC
POC: Barrett Jenkins(bjenkins@restorat ionsystems.com)
Ph: 919-755-9490
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

Summary of Comments on Draft
UpperMusselBPDP_DWREdits. pdf
Page: 2
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:36:38 PM
use Project ID#2022-1231v1

Page: 5
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Cross -Out Date: 12/16/2022 3:28:26 PM
FTI Number: 2
Author: kymerritt
Subject: Inserted Text Date: 12/16/2022 3:28:22 PM
proposed
Number: 3
Author: kymerritt
Subject: Inserted Text Date: 12/16/2022 3:28:34 PM
Umbrella
Number: 4
Author: kymerritt
Subject: Inserted Text Date: 12/16/2022 3:28:45 PM
(UBI)
Number: 5
Author: kymerritt
Subject: Inserted Text Date: 12/16/2022 3:29:05 PM
in accordance with the buffer mitigation rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)

*Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:44:56 PM
these photos predate the Site Viability assessment site visit. photos submitted with BPDPs cannot predate the Site Viability assessment date
and need to be taken closer to the date the BPDP is submitted.

AM
rqpNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:39:17 PM
see Figure 6
r�Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:43:16 PM
need to add a note about the culvert being removed as part of parcel preparation along Feature E
Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:36:26 PM
it says the parcel "may' be ripped. Is there any reason why the Provider would not want to rip the soil? Explain, otherwise change "may" to "will"
gbNumber: 4 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:36:19 PM
Is the provider not able to address non -diffused flow any other way? No plugging, filling or grading the section of ditch within the easement
area?? Why or why not? Keep in mind that the use of this memo is not a requirement if the provider is able to create diffused flow by other
efforts. Explain

Page: 10
gpNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:36:17 PM
the expectation, is that RS will make sure the stems are well mixed in the bags BEFORE they are planted by the crews. The way this is worded
doesn't meet that expectation. reword the sentence to acknowledge this expectation
Commit to ensuring that stem species will be well mixed before planting to ensure diversity of bare roots across the planted area.
wNumber: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:37:07 PM
If 14 species of trees are shown in the table, DWR expects 14 species to be planted. If anticipating to plant less than 14 species, you need to at
least indicate the minimum # of species RS will plant. RS indicated only a minimum of 4 species ... if that is true, DWR cannot confirm the "% of
Total Planted Tree" column would comply with the performance standard "no one tree species will be greater than 50%". Additionally, with the
minimum proposal of 4, RS is at risk for not meeting the performance standard for stem diversity if less than 4 species end up in plots or fail to
thrive/survive. The standard in rule is 4, but hopefully RS is intending to plant more based on the comment above. However, at this time, the
column on '% of total planted trees", which is required to include in this plan, is not accurate unless RS truly plants 14 species (all adding up to
be 100%). Adjust the table accordingly and only show the number of species RS truly intends to plant. If not 14 species, then a minium of X
and of those X species show the % intending to plant.
Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:37:16 PM
DWR can no longer accept this note below the planting table. It has created a big issue when DWR has been lenient on the details of the
Planting proposal in BPDPs. RS will be required to follow the planting list in Table 7. If any changes are needed to the planting list before
planting, RS will need to submit a request to DWR for approval of that modified planting list. DWR will accept a FEW substitutions if RS wants
to include those few potential substitutions in a Table 7b...but you must include the % those subs are intended to be utilized in the case you
need those substitutions.

Page: 11
*Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:37:43 PM
IRS should take measures to ensure that plots are diverse (have 4 species represented as much as possible) and where a species does not
represent more than 50% of the plot. All plots need to be representative of the planted diversity and density surrounding the plot and
will be evaluated by DWR during the onsite AsBuilt Walkthru to ensure these criteria are met.
All DWR comments provided on planting plan & monitoring are being provided under the following Rule reference 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(n)(2-4).
*Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:38:52 PM
the 2% is taken from the Total Planted Area, not the "Total restoration credit generating area". the total planted area is shown in Figure 6 and
represented in Table 9 as 874,012 ft2
please correct statement accordingly.
*Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:39:37 PM
no specific parameters are noted here for the data intended to be collected. it is expected that in order to meet the performance standards,
and to be able to determine if the Health of stems is sufficient (0295)(2)(E), the data that needs to be committed to being collected are: species,
height, planting date (or volunteer). Vigor should also be included.

Page: 12
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:39:54 PM
add language from the UMBI that commits the Provider to notifying DWR within 30 calendar days from the completion of the activities.
Within 30 calendar days after completing the establishment of the buffer mitigation and nutrient offset areas, the
Sponsor will submit written notification to DWR documenting that all nutrient offset activities have been completed.
Failure to submit written notification within 30 days may result in a modified credit release schedule or a delay in the
issuance of credit releases. Notification shall include all the items as specified in the UBI

Table 9. UPPER MUSSEFSHELL, NC-OWR Proje136-0000, Project Credits
RAN
Total Ephemeral Area Ift'l for Credit:
0
0
Total Eligibta Ephemeral Area(ft'}:
0
Ephemeral Reachwas%TABM
ter Preservalioe [redlts Below Total Eiigiblefw Preservation(ftr}:
0
o.m;
Preservationas%TABM
Total lCredinblel
Credit Type
location
Subjett7
Feature Type
Mitigation A00ty
Min -Max buffer
Feature Name
TOtalArea (sfl
Area for Buffer
IniffalCredit
XFull Credit
Final Credit
Riparian
Witl[h N
1 1
Mitigation [ft'1
Ix: }
Ratio 1
Ix:
Ratio 1
Buffer Credits
Preservation Area Subtotals
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION JAW)
Mitigation Totals
square Feet
credits
Restore Yiun:
0
O.WO
Enhancement:
o
0.000
Preservation:
0
O.WO
Total Riparian Buffer:
0
0000
TOTAL NLURIENT OFFSET
MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals Square Fee'
credits
NitYogen:
44,470.fi05
Nctrient Offset: g79012
Phosphorus:
0Wo
1. The Randleman lake buffer rules allow wme ditches to be classified as subject according to 15A NCACO20 .0250 (5}(a).
last updated 08f03j2020

Page: 14
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:40:33 PM
update project number

Page: 16
*Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:40:55 PM
i do not know what group this is. Correct All Figures to say "401 & Buffer Permitting Branch"

gpNumber: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:41:43 PM
can RS straighten this easement line
Number: 2 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:41:38 PM
can RS straighten this easement line
Number: 3 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:41:57 PM
RS should be proposing straighter easement lines (as noted to be an issue on other sites proposed by RS). The ability to go out to 200' from
TOB should provide all providers the ability to make straighter easement lines, thus reducing the risk of encroachments during monitoring. This
is not required for RS to change, but RS should consider the risk associated with curvy easements and make changes to the easement boundary
to reduce those risks.

Page: 21
Number: 1 Author: kymerritt Subject: Sticky Note Date: 12/16/2022 3:42:15 PM
change "Reforestation Area" to "Area to be Planted" or "Planted Area"

Upper Musselshell Bank Parcel — Neuse 04; Jones County Photo Date: 04/08/2022
Image 1: Looking west, upper extent of Musselshell Creek & Feature I (Highway 41 in background