20160385 Ver 2_DWR Comments to Buffer Mit Plan_20170703

DW # 9'o�(J-wk)86va
Mitigation Plan Checklist for Riparian Buffer Restoration Mitigation Sites - created 7/15/13
"� DDWR Stream Determination
ti WR Site Viability Letter
Site Location I n L4 a I � )11—n
o Directions including Lat & Long
o 8 -digit HUC Wor 14 digit (if applicable)
Project Name
o County Reviewed By
o EMC approved Soil map, Topo and Aerial Maps J
o Sub -watershed where applicable Date
❑ Existing Site Conditions w/ photos 30s Q 0 l U
�1-u baotu
'Proposed restoration efforts w/ a planting plan _ r\r O"'c"ons 1t , Aod
e Monitoring & Maintenance Plan - V ,'% 4i tah' ono n %ws4e d
\J\�❑ Financial Assurance (if applicable) - pysii(�Jd-fc DNS?
Associated buffer , which shall include credit generation, service
area, etc. - Us dan� (A on
In'Credit Determination Table/Map - NtkW Clp4 WkCn U, c4h bCLY�ctg pylpw� t e x+M �t
cygvc000n o'' a49, or) P'Pscrur+in met o+(
if .. ti
n Verification that the site does not have an impact on threatened or endangered species
[e' Verification that the site is not affected by on-site or nearby sources of contamination as provided
e by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
1 f/Verification that the site can be constructed on land if it is an archaeological site;
Cay 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).

Lake Wendell Mitigation Plan (DWR# 2015-0385v2) DWR staff Comments to Buffer Mitigation
Proposal July 3, 2017
• Section 1.0:
o Please add rule references to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (.0295) to explain what the
Preservation, Restoration & Enhancement credits are being proposed under. E.g. Is
Enhancement proposed under .0295 (n) or (0)(6)? The viability letter should help.
o DWR performed a stream determination on R5. Please include this determination in the
Appendix and reference within the appropriate section.
o Acknowledge in Table 1 if the Preservation credits comply with .0295 (0)(5).
o Provide the following additional information in Table 1 and the corresponding Figure 11
& Plan Sheets 15-18 to provide more clarity and transparency:
■ Figure 11 has a statement about all areas being within 30-100', while other places
in the Mitigation Plan state there is nothing less than 50', or nothing less than
30'. Please clarify.
■ On Plan Sheet #13, a portion of the Enhancement area on R1 appears to be less
than 30'. I'm unable to confirm the proposal without seeing it visually
represented where it can be provided.
■ If there is a performance standard for vegetation that is different for the IRT vs
DWR to measure success, then it makes sense to split out. For example, DWR
can close out the buffer portion from 0-100' at 5 years ... but the IRT will require
7 years of monitoring within 0-50'.
■ Here is an example table:
Riparian
Zone
Credit
Type
Mitigation Type
Total
Acreage
Credit
Ratio
Credit
per Acre
(ft2)
Total
Credits
(ft2)
Zone A
Riparian
Restoration
1:1
(TOB to
Buffer
Enhancement
2:1
50')
Preservation
10:1
Zone B
Riparian
Restoration
1:1
(51' — 100')
Buffer
Preservation
10:1
o Please add the following statement: "This mitigation plan does not include a proposal for
generating nutrient offset credits. Therefore, this mitigation site cannot be used to
generate nutrient offset credits by WLS or NCDMS. A site viability letter indicating
where riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset would be acceptable was provided by
DWR and is provided in Appendix 7 ".
(I know the RFP did not request Nutrient Offsets and WLS didn't provide it in the
proposal. Unless DMS provides a supplemental Credit Asset Summary Map with this
mitigation plan review, DWR will not accept conversion requests from Buffer Credits to
Nutrient Offset credits at closeout. Please note that not all buffer creditable areas are
viable for nutrient offset credits.)

• Section 6.0
o Add the following, "All riparian planting activities will commence in concurrence with
the stream mitigation activities and not before. Therefore, the mitigation area where
buffer mitigation credits are being generated may be altered slightly depending on the
final stream bank design. The planted areas will be surveyed and information provided
in the As -Built report."
• Section 6.5
o Text states that areas generating buffer mitigation credit are not going to be < 50'. Please
add confirmation to Table 1.0 and Figure 11 by showing the widths from TOB back.
■ Note that any areas less than 30' get only 75% of full credit. If any areas
proposed for buffer credit are less than 30' from TOB, please show in table and
acknowledge in text.
o Add a note that the performance standards for generating buffer mitigation within
riparian restoration and enhancement areas are 260 stems/acre at five years.
o Red Maple and Tag Alder are not recommended species for this vegetation plan and are
not vital for this project's vegetation success.
• Section 7.0:
o Since this mitigation plan combines both Stream & Buffer Mitigation, please include
references to .0295.
• Section 7.3:
o Performance standards for vegetation are different for generating buffer mitigation and
are referenced within .0295 (n)(2). Please reference Appendix 13 here.
• Appendix 13:
o Riparian Buffer Mitigation Performance Criteria: Choose up front what "stems" will
count towards the final performance standard of 260 stems/acre. If you want to include
shrubs as stems to count towards success, then you will need to provide a planting plan
that includes shrubs. You will be held accountable to meeting the performance standard
you lay out in this plan.
o Vegetation Monitoring: .0295 states that there must be 5 years of monitoring and that
written annual reports are to be submitted annually for a period of five years after site is
fully constructed. This document states there will only be monitoring in years 1, 3 and 5.
To comply with .0295, please indicate that the site will be monitoring for 5 years and
there will be 5 written annual reports. If WLS wants to submit their 5 annual reports on a
schedule different than each year for 5 consecutive years, please propose an alternative
schedule that still complies with .0295.
• Section 8.4
o Performance standards for vegetation monitoring and maintenance are different for
generating buffer mitigation and are referenced within 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)(2-4).
Please reference Appendix 13 here.
• Figure 11
o Clarify widths to justify the 1:1 & 2:1 ratios. Here is an example
2

• Plan Sheets
o Water Quality Treatment Features are shown having outlet channels constructed through the
riparian buffer. Please explain how the installation of these treatment devices and
corresponding outlet channels comply with the Minimum Design Criteria for Stormwater
Control Measures and how they comply with the Neuse Buffer Protection Rule (within 50'
Neuse Buffer) and .0295 (for diffuse flow within 0-100' mitigation area). Outlet channels
through the 50' Neuse buffer requires a Buffer Authorization. How will these features be
maintained after DMS Closeout? Is there an access easement around these structures to allow
Stewardship the ability to provide maintenance if necessary?
o Vernal pools are shown within the riparian restoration/enhancement/preservation mitigation
areas and within the Neuse Buffer. Some vernal pools (as shown on Sheet 11) have outlet
channels proposed. Please explain how the installation of these pools and their outlet
channels will comply with the Neuse Buffer Protection Rule (within first 50' feet) and .0295
(for diffuse flow within 0-100' mitigation area). This activity may require a Buffer
Authorization.
0 15-18: see comments on widths in Section 1.0 above
3