20220819 Ver 2_2023.03.09 Joshua Creek BPDP Response to 1st Submittal Comments_20230309

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20220819
Version* 2
Select Reviewer: *
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 03/15/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 3/9/2023
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
Contact Name: *
Michael Beinenson
Project Information
ID#:*
20220819
Existing ID#
Project Type:
DMS Mitigation Bank
Yes No
Email Address: *
[e-mail]
Version:* 2
Project Name: Joshua Creek Nutrient Offset and Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
County: Lenoir
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type: *
Mitigation Information
File Upload:
Signature
Print Name:*
Signature: *
Existing Version
2023.03.09 Joshua Creek BPDP Response to lst
512.95KB
Submittal Comments.pdf
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Cameron Jernigan
6 `�llor t iv C et4* '?Q4r

�� MCADAMS
March 9, 2023
Katie Merritt
NCDEQ, DWR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > ECT22002.00
RE: Joshua Creek BPDP
Joshua Creek Nutrient Offset and Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
NCDWR Project #2022-0819v2
Response to Review Comments
The following are the response comments for the above -mentioned project. Our response comments are in bold.
NCDWR
Reviewer: Katie Merritt
Comment Page
# Label
Review Comments and Response
1
2
this is more than a "Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site", it is also a Nutrient Offset site. rename
title accordingly.
Title and other references have been updated to "Joshua Creek Nutrient Offset and
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site" throughout the BPDP.
2
2
this should be called "Bank parcel development Package"
Text has been revised to say Bank Parcel Development Package here and throughout.
3
2
use project ID# 2022-0819v2
Project ID has been revised.
4
4
these photos are not timestamped to show this date. edit accordingly.
The date the photos were collected have been added to Appendix A.
5
5
rename project title as previously commented.
Completed.
6
5
this document is a "Bank Parcel Development Package" as referenced in the MBI. Change
mitigation plan to BPDP here and throughout the Plan.
Mitigation Plan has been changed to BPDP here and throughout.
7
5
Bank Sponsor name needs to include the company name as seen on the Secretary of State
Website, which includes the "LLC". Edit accordingly.
Text has been revised to include LLC.
8
5
change Mitigation Plan to BPDP
Completed.
9
5
add "proposed" MBI since it hasn't been approved yet
creating experiences through experience 621 Hillsborough Street, Suite 500, Raleigh, NC 27603 / 919. 361. 5000

�� MCADAMS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > ECT22001.00
Completed.
Since you are citing the credit potential in Section 1, you need to add the following language:
"The final project area will be delineated and depicted in the As -Built Survey and submitted
10
5
with the As -Built Survey. Therefore, credit totals may change slightly depending on the As -
Built survey."
The sentence has been included along with the proposed credit potential in the project
introduction.
11
5
Parcel
"Joshua Creek Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site" has been replaced with "Parcel".
when describing nutrient offset, we do not (and are not allowed) to use "mitigation". The
term "mitigation" for this Parcel can only be used when describing the buffer mitigation
12
5
credit areas/credits. Check through the plan and make sure this is edited accordingly. I
recommend switching the phrase to say "riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset" or
"nutrient offset and riparian buffer mitigation
Noted. Wording has been revised throughout.
13
5
mitigation
Text has been added to "riparian buffer" as well as removed from "nutrient offset".
when describing the site, make sure to include all the project features (streams, ephemeral
14
5
channels and ditches) as applicable. just saying "streams" is inaccurate.
Text has been added and revised within the introduction and throughout the BPDP to
clarify the project features. Joshua Creek and F3 are referred to as stream features. F1 is
now referred to as an unmapped feature acting as an intermittent stream not subject to
buffer regulations (as described in the determination letter). Also non -jurisdictional is used
to describe F1. F2 is described as an ephemeral channel that is unmapped, non -
jurisdictional, or not subject. The ditches are described similarly, with additional
clarification that they are not viable for credit or used in credit calculations.
15
5
a minimum width of 50' from tops of banks and extend out
Text was added.
it is important to introduce the applicable rules for which this BPDP is being submitted. Need
to reference 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (for buffer mitigation) and 15A NCAC 02B .0703 (for
16
5
nutrient offset). It is also necessary to state somewhere in this section that riparian
restoration for generating nutrient offsets will be done in accordance with the MBI since Rule
0703 doesn't specifically speak to riparian restoration for generating nutrient offsets.
Reference to the rules has been added.
it says that bank erosion will be stabilized as part of the "buffer restoration". Change
"buffer" to "riparian" to be all inclusive of buffer and nutrient offset areas. Details regarding
17
5
what kind of "bank stabilization" will be performed needs to be added in detail to section
4.1. Therefore, add a reference to 4.1 here knowing that those details need to be added to
the final draft.
Stabilization will include minor grading, erosion control matting, seeding and/or live stakes
planted as necessary. Description added to section 4.1.
General Note: When describing the restoration areas, make sure to include "and adjacent
18
5
riparian areas" . In some sections, it only says the riparian restoration of "riparian buffers".
However, "Riparian Buffer" is defined in rules as having a "Zone 1" and a "Zone 2" and only
creating experiences through experience 2 of 8

�� MCADAMS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > ECT22001.00
being the area adjacent to streams depicted on certain maps. Not all of your streams on this
Parcel were deemed "Subject to the Buffer rules", therefore using the term "Riparian Buffer"
is not accurate for describing those areas. Errors can simply be avoided by just saying
"riparian buffers and adjacent riparian areas". I have corrected this in the Plan in some
areas, but i did not correct it in all sections.
Noted. Text has been revised throughout.
photo dates were quite a while ago. indicate any changes, if any, that have occurred on the
19
6
Parcel since the photos were taken. this includes any landuses or conditions that were not
seen on the date the viability assessment was conducted by DWR.
Clarification has been added. No change in land use nor conditions have been observed.
20
6
there is only 1 stream feature, the rest are ditches and 1 is an ephemeral. edit accordingly.
Descriptions of the project features have been revised.
21
7
update name
Completed.
22
7
make sure "RBC" and "NOC" are defined below the table or somewhere in the Document if
using this acronym.
RBC and NOC have been defined below the table.
23
7
March 2023 may not be feasible. i recommend changing to "late March or early April"
Planting date has been changed to April 2023.
24
8
DWR did not assess D1 or D3, only D2 and D4. clarify this in this section.
This has been revised in the table and paragraph above.
25
12
areas
"riparian buffer" has been replaced with "riparian areas"
26
13
what is the plan if soil tests show deficiencies?
The reference to soil testing has been removed. There is no plan to conduct soil fertility
testing. However, any soil deficiencies made apparent after the first growing period and
consequent monitoring periods may be addressed using appropriate soil amendments. See
section 5.3 for this updated language.
Non -diffused flow is an issue on this Parcel with Ditch 2 and Ditch 4. But restoring diffused
flow in not addressed in this Plan, which is required in rule. How is EcoTerra addressing non -
27
13
diffused flow through the newly restored riparian areas with Ditch 2 and Ditch 4 bisecting the
area?
Non -diffused flow cannot be attained. Text has been revised throughout (included section
7.1 Credit Potential, and 4.0 mitigation work plan) to include this assertion and credits
have been reduced per the Buffer Interpretation/Clarification Memo. Figures 7, 8, and 9
have been revised to show the deducted areas.
please explain what is meant by "mechanically controlled" and what is meant by "chemically
28
13
controlled". Make sure to indicate that you will be using aquatic safe herbicides by a
licensed applicator
This sentence has been revised to include examples of mechanical and chemical means.
"Aquatic -safe" has been added to the first sentence of the paragraph.
29
13
change buffer to riparian
Completed
creating experiences through experience 3 of 8

�� MCADAMS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > ECT22001.00
need to add language to this section commiting to transferring the easement to a long term
30
13
steward before year 4 (see MBI language). I forgot to add this comment on the Britt and
hales BPDP, please address on that plan as well.
Completed. Also completed for Britt & Hales.
explain the minimum and maximum widths for the riparian restoration. i need to know that
31
14
Ecoterra is meeting the minimum widths for buffer mitigation at 1:1 (which is 30') and for
nutrient offset at 1:1. (which is 50')
Text has been included in section 4.0.
32
14
details of "minor bank stabilization" needed. I need to make sure there are no unauthorized
activities in the buffer or stream from what you are planning to do to accomplish this
Details have been provided in section 4.1.
on many as -built site walks in the past, ive witnessed where the tops of ditch/stream banks
are void of planted stems (anywhere from 5-25' landward void of stems). Please make sure
33
14
this plan addresses this to make sure Ecoterra oversees the planting efforts of planting crews
and commits to adequate stem placement to include tops of banks. otherwise, if at the
Asbuilt walk this area is void of stems, there will be a required supplemental plant before
credit releases.
Text was added to address this comment
the expectation, is that EcoTerra 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.
34
14
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.
Text was added to address this comment
35
14
and the MBI
Text has been added
36
14
Cross -out: "trees"
Text was deleted
37
14
stems
Text has been added
If 19 species of trees are shown in the table, DWR expects 19 species to be planted (or you
can show "suitable substitutions"). If anticipating to plant less than 16 species, you need to
at least indicate the minimum # of species Ecoterra will plant. Ecoterra indicated only a
minimum of 4 species... if that is true, DWR cannot confirm the "approximate percentage"
column would comply with the performance standard of "no one tree species will be greater
than 50%" as noted on Rule 0295 (n)(2). Additionally, with the minimum proposal of 4,
38
14
Ecoterra 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
EcoTerra 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 EcoTerra truly plants 19 species (all adding up to be 100%). Adjust the table
accordingly I understand that changes to planting plans can happen. If any changes are
needed to the planting list before planting, EcoTerra will need to submit a request to DWR
for approval of that modified planting list if not listed as an approved tree/shrub in table 8.
creating experiences through experience 4 of 8

�� MCADAMS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > ECT22001.00
DWR will accept a FEW substitutions if EcoTerra wants to include those few potential
substitutions in a Table 8b... but you must include the %those subs are intended to be
utilized in the case you need those substitutions.
Table 8 has been updated. Text has been revised to delete the statement regarding the
minimum of 4 species. Eco Terra intends to plant the 10 species provided in Table 8. The
species percentages have been updated and ensure that no one tree species will be greater
than 50%.
a general note: EcoTerra 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
39
15
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).
Text has been added to section 5.2 to reiterate general note provided.
40
15
update this section accordingly to allow the performance standard to include trees and
shrubs. similar comments were made on the Britt and Hales BPDP.
Preference is to use the performance standard applicable to trees only. No update needed.
41
16
the MBI
Replaced text with "the MBI"
42
16
riparian
changed "buffer" to "riparian"
we reference the MBi because it's the only place we identify performance standards
43
16
acceptable for nutrient offset credit generation areas. if this was just a buffer mitigation
credit site, it would be completely okay to just reference rule 0295.
Noted.
the 2% is taken from the Total Planted Area, the total planted area is represented in Table
44
16
10 as the "Total Area" and shown to be 1,343,942 square feet, which is approximately 30
acres. How did 26 plots get calculated?
A description of the calculation has been added to the text
45
16
and the corresponding MBI
Text has been added
46
16
buffer mitigation
"Consolidated Buffer Rule" replaced with "buffer mitigation Rule"
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
47
16
collected are: species, height, planting date (or volunteer) and Vigor. add clarity to this
paragraph on what data, both qualitative and quantitative" will be collected for the
vegetation.
Text has been added to address this comment
add language to this section committing to marking these boundaries prior to the Task 2
48
17
milestone and DWR site walk. the credit release schedule for task 2 requires a site visit, so in
order to make sure task 2 is fully completed, the boundaries need to be marked.
Text has been added to address this comment
creating experiences through experience 5 of 8

�� MCADAMS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > ECT22001.00
to comply with the MBI, the monitoring bond must be 100% of the estimated cost, but no
49
17
less than $100,000. Edit the text accordingly. Does EcoTerra anticipate more than $100,000?
Text has been updated. Eco Terra does no anticipate more than $100,000.
50
18
reiterate that the total credit generation for RBC and NOC will depend on the final survey....
Text has been added to the end of the 2nd paragraph to address this comment
there is only 1 stream feature. make sure to use correct terms for features as identified in
51
18
the site viability letter.
These descriptions have been revised
52
18
Cross -out: within 200 linear feet landward of the
completed
53
18
Insert: "from"
Completed
54
18
landward out to 200'
Text has been revised
55
18
Cross -out: "buffer"
Completed
56
18
Cross -out: "buffer"
Completed
add any non -diffused flow deductions required for two ditches, unless able to diffuse flows.
57
18
if diffusing flows, make sure to describe your methods in section 4.0
Descriptions of the credit deductions have been added to section 7.1 but also included in
4.0
need to explain how the ephemeral channel has a cap of 25% and describe if you are within
58
18
that 25% or not. need to explain how the preservation credits have a 25% cap and explain
how are you wihtin that cap or not. I forgot to mention this Preservation cap requirement in
the Britt & Hales, so please do that in section 7 as well.
Text has been revised to address this comment
59
18
refer to table 10 as the "Project Credit Table".
text has been revised
60
19
consolidate Joshua Creek and F3 for 0-100' and 101-200';
Table has been revised
need to show any deductions associated with non -diffused flows. see memo referenced in
61
19
MBI if you need to.
table has been revised to show deducted area
"Approximate" plot locations are approved by DWR via this Plan approval. while the figure
labels them "approximate", please know, that Plot placement, while random, still has to be
62
29
approved by DWR. Where ever the plots are shown to be placed in this Plan, they are
required to be placed on the ground and will be confirmed during the AsBuilt site walk for
Task 2 at the best of DWR staff ability.
Noted. "Approximate" has been removed from the legend label. Eco Terra is proposing the
plot locations as shown in the map for DWR review.
63
30
show non -diffused flow and any deductions necessary or other method for approval.
creating experiences through experience 6 of 8

�� MCADAMS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > ECT22001.00
Figures have been revised to show deducted areas
64
30
show non -diffused flow and any deductions necessary or other method for approval.
Figures have been revised to show deducted areas
i know a lot of hard work went into generating this figure, but it needs to be modified to
65
30
show less. It doesn't mean the figure is wrong necessarily, but when the survey is prepared, i
want to make sure EcoTerra has a good figure that the surveyor can use in knowing what
they need to prepare measurements for and where.
Figure has been modified per the comment
Edit the figure based on the following comments: 1) change Riparian Buffer Credits to
"Riparian Restoration for RBC" or "Riparian Preservation for RBC", whichever is applicable 2)
Change Nutrient Offset Credits to "Riparian Restoration for NOC" 3) Show all Subject Streams
66
30
in one color to represent RBC and a different color to represent NOC. All subject streams
should be color coded the same two colors. (includes F3 and Joshua) 4) Show the Ephemeral
Channel separately than the streams 5)Show the Non -Subject Stream (F1) in one color to
represent RBC and a different color to represent NOC.
Figure has been modified per the comment
this corner needs to be catagorized as Ephemeral for RBC. it is currently shown as buffer
credit off Joshua. While i don't disagree that this can and has been argued in the past,
measuring in this way is not consistent with the way we require the banks and dms to
67
30
measure their credit generating areas. we have consistently measured it this way since
before i can even remember reviewing the plans. edit the figure accordingly and update the
Project Credit Table to reflect the change of RBC on Joshua to RBC off F2. It is only necessary
within the first 50', beyond that width, you can measure however you want to as long as
project credit table and AsBuilt survey reflect the correct widths.
F2 riparian buffer area has been revised to show 50' riparian buffers in the corner section
down to the Joshua Creek top of bank.
68
30
this needs to be catagorized as Ephemeral for RBC
F2 riparian buffer area has been revised to show 50' buffers in the corner section down to
the Joshua Creek top of bank.
69
30
remove the ratios, RBC amounts, and SF . Table 10 accounts for all that, the figure does not
this extra information.
These items have been removed
70
30
this is fine as proposed
The Parcel's southern boundary has changed so this area is not included any longer.
71
30
corner needs to be RBC off Feature 1 instead of Joshua.
F1 riparian buffer area has been revised to show 50' buffers in the corner section down to
the Joshua Creek top of bank.
72
30
Feature 3 and Joshua Creek do not need to be differentiated.
The figure has been revised
73
31
add "Planted Area" to the Legend and depict the planted area.
planting area has been added
74
31
show non -diffused flow and any deductions necessary or other method for approval.
The figure has been updated to reflect the deducted areas
creating experiences through experience 7 of 8

MCADAMS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > ECT22001.00
75 31 show non -diffused flow and any deductions necessary or other method for approval.
The figure has been updated to reflect the deducted areas
76 33 Document the dates these photos were taken on the pictures
The date the photos were collected have been added to the appendix item
Consideration of this response is greatly appreciated. If you should have any questions or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 919. 287. 0812.
Sincerely,
MCADAMS
Rebecca Stubbs, PE
Practice Lead, Stream Restoration
creating experiences through experience 8 of 8