20180181 Ver 3_Scarborough MY3 Comments + Approval_20240304

Re: [External] RE: Monitoring Report MY3 Review - Scarborough
Friedman -Herring, Andrew <andrew.friedman herring @deq.nc.gov>
Mon 3/4/2024 1:08 PM
To:Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Cc:Merritt, Katie<[e-mail]>;Alyssa Davis <[e-mail]>
Hi Cara,
Thank you for your responses and including the updated figure. DWR is satisfied with the extent of the
supplemental planting, and asks in general to be notified of plantings before they are implemented
rather than after. DWR also appreciates the inclusion of two additional vegetation transects in MY4 in
addition to the details about the implemented supplemental planting.
The MY3 report for Scarborough is officially approved, and DWR approves a 20% reduction in bond
amount to $40,000. Once a copy of the bond renewal and USACE stream credit release is received, we
will be in contact with the buffer credit release. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Best,
Andrew Friedman -Herring
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources - 401 & Buffer Permitting
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(919)-707-3644
[e-mail]
From: Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 2:54 PM
To: Friedman -Herring, Andrew <[e-mail]>
Cc: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>; Alyssa Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Monitoring Report MY3 Review - Scarborough
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report
Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Hi Andrew,
Please see WLS' responses in blue and a revised Figure 2 if needed. We do not have the USACE stream credit
release yet, but as noted on the site visit and meeting minutes, there are no issues with the stream release. I will
forward the release when I receive it.
Also, do we have approval to reduce the bond? And to what amount? The current bond is at $60,000.
RESPONSES
Plots 5 and 6 are both failing in plot density for a second year in a row. On the IRT site
visit on 2/1/24 it was noted that the surrounding area is in similar condition, and an AMP
is likely necessary to improve stem density to achieve the success criteria. Is an AMP
proposed for this area for the upcoming year? Response: After the site visit, WLS was able
to secure trees and supplemental planting occurred on February 19-20, 2024. Replanting
occurred in wetter zones adjacent to the stream reaches. Trees were spaced on average
12' apart with 1-2 rows added along each reach. Where multiple rows were added, rows
were spaced 12-15' apart. Approximately 5.2 acres were planted with 521 containerized

Thanks,
Cara
trees (200 bald cypress, 154 swamp tupelo, 9 river birch, 11 swamp chestnut oak, 75
willow oak, and 72 sycamore). See revised Figure 2 for replanted areas. This information
will be included in the MY4 report. WLS would like to note that when replanting, many
planted stems were identified that weren't readily visible on a cursory site visit. As
discussed during the site visit, we will conduct two random transects near these failing
fixed plots to more accurately determine stem density.
2. A requirement for an easement boundary check to be performed every year was
included in the BPDP but does not seem to be included in this monitoring report.
Respond to this comment with the Year 3 easement boundary check. Even if no
encroachments are found, make sure this information is explicitly included in the report,
either as a stand alone subsection in section 3.0 or as part of section 3.2 Visual
Assessments. Response: The easement boundary inspection was carried out in MY3 (as
well as all previous years), but not added/included in the monitoring report. There were
not any easement encroachments. The easement boundary check will be added to all
future monitoring reports in Section 3.2 Visual Assessments.
a. On the IRT site visit on 2/1/24 it was noted that there was historic and
ongoing beaver activity in the vicinity of Plots 5 and 6, and a fire which
burned an upland section of the easement in MY3. Please make sure that
this information is included in the Buffer and Nutrient monitoring reports
in addition to the Stream and Wetland monitoring reports, and any
encroachment or impacted areas marked on Figure 2. Response: The
beaver dam locations and fire extent area have been added to the revised
Figure 2. This type of information will be included in all future DWR Buffer
and Nutrient monitoring reports.
3. The heights of plots 12-15 appear to be lower than the site average and are all clustered
together along UT1-R2. The vigor of plots 13-15 also are rated mostly fair. Is there a factor
impacting growing conditions in this area of the site? Is an AMP being considered for this
area as well? Response: Vegetation plots 13-15 were included in the supplemental
planting. These plots are in heavy clay soils that remain wet, and the replanting was a
species mix that will be more suitable for the wetter soils. No additional AMP is being
considered.
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
CARA CONDER
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
[e-mail]
+ 1 [phone]
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
United States
0®
www.waterlandsolutions.com
From: Friedman -Herring, Andrew <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 3:16 PM

To: Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Cc: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Monitoring Report MY3 Review - Scarborough
Hi Cara,
DWR has completed the review for the Scarborough Buffer and Nutrient Offset Bank and have
the following comments:
Plots 5 and 6 are both failing in plot density for a second year in a row. On the IRT site visit on
2/1/24 it was noted that the surrounding area is in similar condition, and an AMP is likely
necessary to improve stem density to achieve the success criteria. Is an AMP proposed for this
area for the upcoming year?
2. A requirement for an easement boundary check to be performed every year was
included in the BPDP but does not seem to be included in this monitoring report.
Respond to this comment with the Year 3 easement boundary check. Even if no
encroachments are found, make sure this information is explicitly included in the report,
either as a stand alone subsection in section 3.0 or as part of section 3.2 Visual
Assessments.
a. On the IRT site visit on 2/1/24 it was noted that there was historic and
ongoing beaver activity in the vicinity of Plots 5 and 6, and a fire which
burned an upland section of the easement in MY3. Please make sure that
this information is included in the Buffer and Nutrient monitoring reports
in addition to the Stream and Wetland monitoring reports, and any
encroachment or impacted areas marked on Figure 2.
3. The heights of plots 12-15 appear to be lower than the site average and are all clustered
together along UT1-R2. The vigor of plots 13-15 also are rated mostly fair. Is there a factor
impacting growing conditions in this area of the site? Is an AMP being considered for this
area as well?
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please provide an adequate response to all
items above along with supporting documents if required. Make sure to include the USACE
stream credit release showing that the Coastal Headwater success criteria are being met on all
project streams generating buffer credit.
Once DWR receives a response to the comments above issuance of monitoring report approval
and credit release can be determined. Let me know if you have any further questions.
Best,
Andrew Friedman -Herring
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources - 401 & Buffer Permitting
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(919)-707-3644
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an
authorized state official.
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this
email as spam.

S
.
it
s- •' _ . W
ys.
Feet .
500 1, 000
UT1 B
2
Headwater
hannel,Ends
elk
Site Access: 35.32294,-77.98508
y�
m Suppleental Plantin
r8 _ .. -.
38
25
°22 1. 26
z 21.. 24
'. 23
lJT1-R2 19
e 20 37
Ali
1 V// .
16 Headwater Channel Ends
17
I
18
a
P,
i
i
h
v � '
x
Source: Esri, D,ig9ta'rlGlobe
Conservation Easement
— — Top of Bank
Stream
[ Wetland
Nutrient Offset, 0-50 ft
Nutrient Offset, 51-100 ft
Nutrient Offset 101-200 ft
Coastal Headwater Buffer Restoration, 0-50 ft
(Credits calculated on valley length)
Culvert
-= Beaver Dam Location
Fire Area (11.6 ac)
0 Supplemental Planting (5.2 ac)
Vegetation Plots Meeting Criteria
Yes
— No
TM
WATER &LAND
SOLUTIONS
Scarborough Nutrient Offset and Riparian Buffer Project
Wayne County, North Carolina
DWR Project Number: 2018-0181v3
November 2023
MY3
Current Conditions Plan View
Monitoring Year 3
FIGURE
2
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US