20141149 Ver 8_RS responses to DWR comments_20171016

Rocky Top BPDP 9/29/17 Katie Merritt, DWR Comments
1. See comments on Figure 6: Figure 6 comments were addressed (see below).
2. These photos are old, prior to Site Viability Letter. Prior to Public Notice, please submit updated
photos that show the "current conditions" of this site at BPDP submittal. They also need to be
dated. Additional photos were taken on October 5t", 2017 and added to the photo set. Dates were
also added to the original photos.
3. This easement isn't written in accordance with the USACE or the DWR template. However, it doesn't
have to be dealt with at this time for the BPDP to be approved. A revised conservation easement
approved by the USACE has been added. Please note this easement has also been transferred to the
NCWHF for stewardship.
4. Move to Appendix A and title it Figure 8: This figure was changed to Figure 8 and moved to
Appendix A.
5. In Table 4, it implies restoration totals are 2.19ac (for all areas TOB -100') and .004ac (for all areas
<29'). The way i understand the location of 2.19 ac as provided in the table, is all 2.19 acres of
restoration are from TOB to a minimum of 100'. I can't tell, because there isn't a figure showing line
breaks of 0-50' and 51-100', etc. We have adjusted the table and figure legend to match the rule as
before (i.e. Buffer width 20-29 ft. from TOB, Buffer Width 30-100 ft. from TOB, etc.). Also we have
added lines at the 50 ft., 100 ft., and 200 ft. breaks on Figure 6 & 8
If this table is accurate, which I'm not sure it is accurately stated, then out of this amount, wouldn't
2.19 ac of your buffer restoration credits be able to be converted to nutrient since the table implies
those acres go to a minimum of 100'? Am i missing something? Otherwise, since you state only 0.86
acres out of your total buffer restoration is transferrable into nutrient offsets, you are implying that
a lot of that 2.19 acres is not a minimum of 50'. Please explain and make your figures clarify any
ambiguity.
All acreages were updated due to all comment changes.
6. Is this correct? When looking at Figure 6, only .853acres would appear to not meet criteria for NOC.
The Restoration areas >50 all meet criteria to be NOC.
All acreages were updated due to all comment changes.
7. Correct rule reference. Rule reference was corrected
8. This rule does not exist. Rule reference was deleted.
9. Your riparian restoration will be actually be accomplished through BOTH the USACE docs AND your
UMBI with DWR... please clarify here. The following was added to the text "and the Phase One Haw
River WS Umbrella Banking Instrument"
10. 1 apologize, but i was incorrect with this statement. What I meant to say, was that you can get
credit, but just not different credit. So, if it's Enhancement via cattle, it couldn't be considered
"restoration" just because you removed the trees during stream channel construction. this means
you can add back those acres to your Enhancement #s We have updated figures and text has been

updated as follows "Areas where existing mature vegetation will potentially be negatively impacted
by stream restoration activities are not eligible for riparian buffer restoration credit; however, are
eligible for riparian buffer enhancement via cattle exclusion credit (Figure 6, Appendix A)."
11. "Is anticipated to be performed"...This text was adjusted.
12. Add suggested plot locations to one of your figures and reference the figure here. In all BPDPs, we
are requesting that the provider "suggest" where they intend to put plots by providing a Figure that
shows the placement. Potential vegetation plot locations were added to Figure 6.
13. Typo? No; however, the text was changed to read permanent vegetation plots to avoid any
confusion.
14. This shall include a minimum of four native hardwood tree and shrub species, where no one species
shall be greater than 50% of the stems. The following sentence was added to the text "A minimum
of four native, hardwood tree and shrub species must be present, with no one species representing
greater than 50% of the stems."
15. performance standards are 260 We are keeping this at 320 to keep the Nutrient Offset Credit
option available
16. In being consistent with other providers who recorded easements prior to DWR approval you need
to add this: The conservation easement on this Bank Parcel was not approved by the DWR prior to
recordation and may not be consistent with the standards employed by the State of North Carolina.
Therefore, the Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement is revised if needed to
ensure it allows for the implementation of the Rocky Top Mitigation Bank, the Rocky Top Bank
Parcel Development Package, and will grant all rights to both the Grantee and the NCDWR.
Additional changes to the conservation easement will be determined in consultation with RS and the
NCDWR. The conservation easement shall be approved by the DWR and the USACE prior to the
credit release. This was added to Section 4.3
17. Using "intends to" is less binding. Keep as is if you want. Changed from "will" to "intends to"
18. What will this bond be provided to do? Cover the costs of monitoring in the event RS' is unable to do
19. Will it be at least 100K? Renewed every 5 years? The following was added to the text "The
Performance Bond will be a minimum of 100k and will be renewed annually."
20. You need to keep the language i added in my previous comments, because it's not in the UMBI.
"Performance bonds for monitoring shall be renewed to cover the next years monitoring period, with
confirmation of renewal provided to DWR with each annual monitoring report when applicable. DWR
reserves the right to alter the credit release schedule if monitoring reports are submitted without
proof of bond renewals when applicable" The paragraph was added to the text.
21. Is this all? All acreages were updated due to all comment changes.

22. This implies TOB -100' continuous and uninterrupted riparian restoration, but your Figure 6 may
imply this isn't true. Unless this area goes to a minimum of 100', it isn't correct. Having the figure
show more, will help. The table and the Figure aren't talking the same language. We have adjusted
the table and figure legend to match the rule as before (i.e. Buffer width 20-29 ft. from TOB, Buffer
Width 30-100 ft. from TOB, etc.). Also we have added lines at the 50 ft., 100 ft., and 200 ft. breaks
on Figure 6 & 8
23. What makes the purple area not eligible for buffer? These areas were changed to Riparian
enhancement via cattle exclusion
24. See comments in Section 3.0. These comments were addressed.
25. F8 Figure F1 was changed to Figure 8 and moved to Appendix A
26. Please add two lines to this figure or provide a Figure 6(a) if needed. One line - Showing the break
from TOB -50' (don't worry about the <30' areas, they are already shown in pink and i know where
they are now. One line - Showing the break from 50' to the furthest boundary (100?, 125?, 200?)
*If you were only proposing buffer mitigation for this bank, this additional effort wouldn't be
necessary. Lines have been added at the 50 ft., 100 ft., and 200 ft. breaks on Figure 6 & 8
27. Includes the areas between Ut-1 and Ut-2? Yes, lines have been added at the 50 ft., 100 ft., and 200
ft. breaks on Figure 6 & 8; hopefully these provide clarification.
28. See comment in Section 3.0 these comments were addressed.