20150634 Ver 1_DWR Comments_20150803

Mitigation Plan Checklist for Riparian Buffer Restoration Mitigation Sites — created 7/15/13
DWR Stream Determination
V DWR Site Viability Letter
Site Location
I ✓"o Directions including Lat & Long
V o 8 -digit HUC &/or 14 digit (if applicable)
✓ County? -�) Uf �Vrn 0 r WaKk?
V'o EMC approved Soil map, Topo and Aerial Maps
Project Naa}m�1 e
�( , I V
.Reviewed By
11 lla3 iIS-
o Sub - watershed where applicable ? �W.
Date
v Existing Site Conditions w/ photos b fj rsts , vic�
a�0�-
Po MOU "PUCJ)
roposed restoration effdrts w/ a plant' p6� 2:2 M r6 NZ Cie- Tcx�'S X3 God
Monitoring &Maintenance Plan -
> � �� 6�h o1m) s i -C. 4hon "b_k II M li"
Financial Assurance (if applicable)
✓Associated nutrient offset credit calcs, which shall include credit generation, service area, etc. - 0
Q� Credit Determination Table /Map - NUk ItMs �- Cbme -60c)3 4- Chat l
Verification that the site does not have an impact on threatened or endangered species
Verification that the site is not affected by on -site or nearby sources of contamination as provided
by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
Verification that the site can be constructed in a FEMA floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA)
'11 Verification that the site can be constructed on land if it is an archaeological site;
✓A list of all permits that will be required and obtained prior to constructing the mitigation site for
nutrient offset and /or buffer mitigation (e.g. Sediment and Erosion Control Plan from Division of
Land Resources, NCGO10000 Stormwater Permit from NCDWQ, 404 permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification from NCDWQ). NOI V- R(O t d Q S
i
Si oed i n 4ni . P fan

UT To Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Rin_ arian Buffer & Nutrient Offset Mitie_ ation Plan DWR# 2015 -0634
DWR staff (Katie Merritt) Comments:
• Section 1.0:
• Specify the county of this site as Durham. It currently says in parts of "Durham and
Wake"
• Specify this site is in the Upper Falls Lake Watershed. Specify that nutrient offset
mitigation from this site can only be provided to offset impacts from development in the
Falls Watershed, as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0276. Specify that buffer mitigation can
be used to offset permitted impacts according to the Temporary Rule (15A NCAC 02B
.0295) effective October 24, 2014.
• Reference DWR site visits here (stream determinations and viability assessment)
• Section 2.0 Regulatory Considerations
o 2.1: Determination of Credits — The asset map should depict the ftZ of all proposed
credits provided in this table.
• Show "Proposed Assets" vs "Potential Assets. (see comment below on Asset Map)
• Show Nutrient Offset Credits as both Nitrogen Credits & Phosphorous Credits since
this site can provide both.
o The buffer widths should match the widths as specified in 15A NCAC 02B .0295:
5 1 -100 and 101 -200
• Specify whether the numbers in the columns are in "W ", acres, pounds, etc.
• In addition to the "Notes" column, add a column in between "Mitigation Credits"
(which needs to be changed to "Buffer Mitigation Credits ") and "Nutrient Offset
Credits ". It needs to be clear in this table (and the Asset Map) that buffer mitigation
used for buffer credit will not be used for nutrient offset credit (pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295(n)(1))
Example:
Buffer Mitigation Credits Nutrient Offset Credits
(square feet) (pounds)
72,777 OR 3,797.74 1244.59
(Nitrogen) (Phosphorus)
o 2.2: Asset Map /s —
o Match the widths of the zones to the rule: 5 1 -100 and 101 -200
• Depict & differentiate Mitigation Types (Buffer or Nutrient) on this map, not just
zones. A second Asset Map would be okay if necessary. Credits that are
interchangeable can be clarified in the table in 2.1.
• The DWR stream determination letter shows the longer feature divided into areas
"A 1 and A2 ", with the portion in the middle at the rock outcrop being "not a feature
and not subject ". Adjust credits and maps accordingly.
• Section 3.0:
o Explain how DMS will remove the five gullies. A grading plan, if applicable, is required
pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295(i)(4)(C).
o Tag Alder is not a recommended species for riparian buffer restoration sites because it is
a nitrogen fixing plant.

• Need to state that no one species planted will be greater than 50% of planted species (per
15A NCAC 02B .0295(i)(4)(B).
• More detail needed in Vegetation Plan (can we identify 3.2 as Planting Plan instead of
Materials & Methods ?).
• Provide more detail as to which feature, which "zone /distance from stream ", each credit
type is being generated. Provide coordinating figures as well.
For example, "Stream AI is a Restoration Site and will be planted from top of bank -
100' to generate riparian buffer credit and from 101 ' -200' feet for nutrient offset credit.
• Section 4.0:
o Attach the documents that DMS is referencing as the "monitoring template" &
"monitoring guidance document" as Appendices to this Plan. Please use the document
titles when referencing them in the plan for clarity
• The Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines document dated February
2014, is very thorough, but it provides much more information than what will apply to
this project. State what parts of the guidance DMS is going to use to monitor this site,
especially where the guidance offers different options.
• Random plots: Indicate how vegetation plots will be randomly selected. Plot placement
will need to be representative of the entire mitigation area, 0 -200' from each tributary.
• Rotating plots: Indicate the frequency that plots will be rotated. The location of the plots
used for recording vegetation data need to be provided with each monitoring report.
• Quantity of plots: Indicate the minimum # of plots DMS will use.
• Section 5.0:
o Instead of Success Criteria, please use "Performance Standards" to be consistent with
15A NCAC 02B .0295.
• Section 6.0
o Add "remedial measures" to the Component/Feature table and state that "any remediation
efforts performed will be documented in the monitoring reports"
2