20160366 Ver 2_Mit Plan comments_buffer_km_20170210

Mitigation Plan Checklist for Riparian Buffer Restoration Mitigation Sites - created 7/15/13
e DWR Stream Determination
LAY DWR Site Viability Letter
"fa%Site Location
Directions including Lat & Long
V'8 -digit HUC &/or 14 digit (if applicable)
�ounty
lrrs' EMC approved Soil map, Topo and Aerial Maps
�b-watershed where applicable
Existing Site Conditions w/ photos
kvo 0142 -
Project Name
Reviewed By
Date
i/ Proposed restoration efforts w/ a planting plan - :�C � ur s I
C' Monitoring & Maintenance Plan -- _-5-1VO
�k Financial Assurance (if applicable)
44SI-sociated
nutcit redit calcs, which shall include credit generation, service area, etc:-
6'Credit Determination Table/Map t\D_L&:) Q '�) ) 14�
/ Verification that the site does not have an impact on threatened or endangered species
rt� 11 Verification that the site is not affected by on-site or nearby sources of contamination as provided
N .
by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
%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, NCG010000 Stormwater Permit from NCDWQ, 404 permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification from NCDWQ).

Project Name: Martin Dairy Mitigation Plan (reviewed for buffer restoration/mitigation per 15A NCAC
0213 .0295)
DWR Staff Reviewer: Katie Merritt
DWR #: 2016-0366
Mitigation Plan Checklist attached
Submitted to DMS: 2/9/2017
Comments:
• 7.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives — page 10
No Comments
8.7 Vegetation and Planting Plan — page 20
Recommend stating the types of stems (trees, shrubs, combo) that will be planted and that "at least
4 species will be planted" — Rule 0295
Cite Rule 0295 as, "which became effective November 1, 2015" since there were 2 iterations of that
rule
9.2 Vegetation Performance Standards — page 22
Add the following statement to decipher between the vegetation performance standards of the IRT
and those of buffer credit generating areas: "The final performance standard within buffer
restoration areas generating riparian buffer mitigation credits shall include a minimum of four native
hardwood tree species or four native hardwood tree and native shrub species, where no one species
is greater than 50% of stems"
Note that DWR must also provide written approval of vegetation success of buffer restoration areas
generating buffer credit before monitoring can be terminated.
• 10.0 Monitoring Plan — page 22
DMS has a "NC Division of Mitigation Services' Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Annual
Monitoring Report Template (ver. 1.0) dated Feb. 2, 2014. Is there a difference between this
template and the one referenced in this section?
Based on Rule 0295, "The mitigation provider shall submit written annual reports ... for a period of
five years after completion of the activities..." According to text in 10. 0, it's not clear when DMS
would be proposing the completion of monitoring for the buffer generating areas. Is the project, as a
whole, on a 7 year cycle or a 5 year cycle? If DMS intends to bring DWR a closeout request for this
project based on 5 years of vegetation monitoring, they need to state that clearly in this section.
Table 15: Based on "Note 4'; there are 5 total written annual reports that are going to be spread out
over a 7 year period... which is fine... as long as DMS knows that DWR won't close out the project until
there are 5 written annual reports. As this is written, buffer mitigation cannot be closed out prior to
year 7

• 11.0 Long -Term Management Plan — page 25
No comments
• 12.0 Adaptive Management Plan — page 26
No Comments
• 13.0 Determination of Credits — page 26
Typo — Table 18b should be "17b"
Table shows 30'-100' instead of TOB -100' as shown in Concept Map. It should be shown in table 17b
as "TOB -100"' and square feet to be measured accordingly from TOB back 100' for full credit. If
there are any areas less than 30' or 20' within the easement, then you would show that acreage on a
separate row with the applicable % of full credit as provided in the Rule 0295
Use these columns and descriptions to complete your asset table
Project Component
Existing Creditable
Riparian Riparian Mitigation
Area(SF) Area (SF) Type
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
% of
Full
Credit
Riparian
Buffer
Credit
(SF)
BUFFER
Stream Buffer TOB -100'
0 R
1:1
100%
Stream Buffer 101' - 200
0 R
1:1
33%
Credit Service Area =
Verify the assets in 17b with Figure 11 (Concept Map) because the acreages do not match
Verify the service area where buffer credits from this project can be provided in the last row of table
• Appendix 3 DWR Stream Forms and Buffer Viability Letter
• Appendix 4 — Contains pertinent Figures/Maps including the Riparian Buffer Concept Map and
Monitoring Components Map
Verify the assets in 17b with Figure 11 (Concept Map) because the acreages do not match
• Appendix 5 Categorical Exclusion Form which contains T & E information
• Appendix 6 Plan Sheets — Sheet 2.0 is the Planting Plan which contains planting zones and species
lists.
DWR recommends not planting Tag Alder on buffer restoration sites adjacent to NSW waters
• Appendix 7 Maintenance Plan
No Comments
Martin Dairy Mitigation Plan Comments - Page 212