20180466 Ver 2_Comments to Revised BPDP & MBI_20190109

Strickland, Bev
From:
Merritt, Katie
Sent:
Wednesday, January 09, 2019 4:23 PM
To:
'David Knowles'
Cc:
[e-mail]
Subject:
Comments to Revised BPDP & MBI
Attachments:
Additional DWR Comments -revised Dixon BPDP.docx
Hey David,
Per our conversation today, please see my additional comments on the revised BPDP for the Dixon Rd site attached to
this email. Also, as we discussed, the following main things need to be fixed on the MBI:
1) Formatting & Spacing
2) Fix text that is located below page numbers (formatting error)
3) Correct reference to "Neuse" rule and change to "Tar -Pamlico"
4) Credit Release Schedule does NOT have to be on its on page (this is my error. This is only required with
UMBI's, not MRI's)
5) Section VIII Credit Release Schedule is NOT missing additional item #s (after our conversation I determined it
is sufficient as is. Additional item #s are only required with UMBI's, not MRI's
6) Section XI Provisions is missing Items #s F -K (see example MBI for language for "F -K" at this link:
httos://edocs.dea.nc.eov/WaterResources/DocView.asox?dbid=0&id=550686&oaee=l&cr=1
7) Have Jeff sign & date the signature page (electronic signatures are not accepted at this time)
8) Make sure page numbers all match Table of Contents when finalized
No hard copies of revised BPDP or MBI is needed at this time. However, when documents have been finalized, please
submit the electronic copies using the online form.
Thank you for your patience,
Katie
"please note my phone number has changed"
Katie Merritt
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: 919-707-3637
Work Cell: 919-500-0683
Website: http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/401bufferpermitting
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620
1617 Mail Service Center. Raleiah. NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

1-9-2019 (DWR Staff- Katie Merritt) DWR comments in Italics below are taken from original comments
submitted after reviewing the first draft of the Dixon Rd BPDP. The comments provided in bold below
the italics is a new comment as a result of reviewing the revised BPDP where the comment was either
not addressed, not addressed fully or needs further information to review. DWR comments below must
be addressed by GES in full prior to final submittal for review.
Comment I -No figure is provided showing the proposed Conservation Easement Boundary. Maybe
it could be added on Figure I in Appendix 2?
DWR Response: The figure provided in the revised BPDP excludes the footprint of the stream
and ditches. The CE boundary must include the footprint of the ditches to comply with 0295
(o)(8) for buffer credit but must be excluded from credit assets. Please correct all figures
where the CE excludes the ditches.
Comment 2 (section 1.0, first paragraphAdd the text, "under the terms and conditions of the GES
Dixon Road Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI)
DWR Response: Text was not updated in revised BPDP. Please add.
Comment 3 (section 1.0, 3rd paragraph -Add the rule reference, " 15A NCAC 02B . 0295 "
DWR Response: Rule reference was not updated in revised BPDP. Please add.
Comment 4 (page 7, Section 1.2.2, 3rd paragraph) -Revise the text to read as follows: The
designation of riparian acreage adjacent to Ditches 3 and 5 "are expected to provide riparian buffer
credits within the first 50' landward from tops of banks and nutrient offsets within 51-200' landward
from tops of banks. Both sides of the ditches will be planted as part of the riparian restoration
activities "
DWR Response: Text was not updated in revised BPDP. It was my understanding the GES
wanted to get credits adjacent to these ditches. I cannot fully approve your request to get
credit on ditches, if the BPDP doesn't show me where & how the credits are generated next to
the ditches.
Comment 5 (page 11, section 2.0)- "Please add a reference to where these photos can be found in the
BPDP. Provide the date these photos were taken. Provide details regarding any changes to the
site's conditions at submittal of BPDP compared to those conditions observed during the site visit by
DWR. "
DWR Response: While the revised BPDP did provide dates on the photos, it did not address all
of the requests in the comment. Address all items in the final BPDP as requested.
Page 1 of 4

Comment 6 (Page 10, Table 7) -These dates are not possible with the review of the BPDP being
November. Please adjust these timelines to align with a more practical timeframe.
DWR Response: While the revised BPDP does include a different timeline for the activities to
begin, I feel the dates should be represented with a range, rather than next month, considering
GES still hasn't received approval for the BPDP & MBI. I recommend using "March -May" or
other practical timeline. Note: GES cannot do any construction activities/land modifications
until DWR approval of BPDP & MBI.
Comment 7 (Page 21, Section 4.0, Yd paragraph, Pt sentence -Revise sentence as follows: "...in
accordance with the MBI and 15A NCAC 02B . 0295 (n) (2) (B)
DWR Response: Text was not revised in the revised BPDP. Please revise.
Comment 8 (Page 24, Section 7.0)-"I am unable to confirm that these proposed assets meet the Rule
0295 for generating buffer mitigation credits or the MBI for generating nutrient offset credits.
Therefore, please add more details for my review. a revised Table 9 will be required"
DWR Response: While GES did update Figures 4, 9 and Table 9, some of the changes added
additional confusion and aren't complete enough for me verify that the credits proposed
comply with the rules. Figures & Tables need to be revised to adequately represent where
every buffer credit and every nutrient offset credit is requested to be generated through
riparian restoration activities.
Comment 9 (section 7.0)- "Below Table 9 GES needs to provide a statement or two regarding the
ability to convert and transfer credits with DWR approval. "
DWR Response: This text was not added in the revised BPDP. Add text, or DWR will not have
the ability to approve any credit conversion and transfer requests on this Bank. Recommended
language could be, "For this site, all riparian areas proposed in the table above for riparian
restoration were determined by DWR to be in agriculture. Therefore, the XX acres of riparian
buffer restoration credits shown in the table above, can be used for either Neuse riparian buffer
credits or nutrient offset credits, but not both. The Sponsor must submit a written request and
receive written approval from DWR prior to any credit conversions and transfers to the buffer and
nutrient offset credit ledgers. "
Comment 10 (Table 9) -
"Questions for GES:
1. Where along streams is GES wanting to get buffer credits? 0-50' along streams or 0-100' along
streams?
2. What is being proposed along ditches? 0-50' for buffer credits or 0-200 for nutrient offsets? The
Figures provided as a reference for these assets lack a legend and should provide a way to
differentiate between what is proposed for buffer credits and what is proposed for nutrient offset
credits. The boundary lines are shown representing 0-50' and the maximum 200'. But it doesn't show
what will be proposed for buffer or nutrient. Please update the figures to reflect the Table 9 once it
Page 2 of 4

is edited to comply with 0295 (m) and (n) and the MBI. i recommend hatching or different colors on
Figures to represent the different credit types. "
DWR Response: The revised BPDP still does not fully address this request for a visual
representation of credit assets, which should align with Table 9 when complete. And the use of
ditches for buffer credits are not shown.
Comment 11 (Figure 4)- "the width of the ditches & streams cannot be counted towards assets.
Therefore, GES needs to show where those ditch & stream widths are and acknowledge that they are
not included in the overall assets. "
DWR Response: While the revised BPDP did provide changes to Figure 4, The changes were
not correct. GES excluded these areas from being part of the CE . They need to be included in
the CE but excluded from credit assets. Revise as requested.
Comment 12 (Figure 4)- `DWR prefers the use of a legend to describe this figure instead of the
paraphrased text below. Include widths, and differentiate between buffer & nutrient with hatching,
dots or different colors. Include the estimated acreage of each as well "
DWR Response: While the revised BPDP did add a legend showing the different tracts, it did
not address all of the request. The revised legend still does not include credit assets with their
respective widths (0-50', 0-100', 101-200'). legends are more valuable at explaining the credit
asset figure than paraphrasing because the credit asset figures can be quite "busy" with what
they are supposed to show in order to be reviewed for compliant with the rules. Please revise
as requested.
New Comment 13 (section 1.2.1, 1St paragraph) -Revise the following sentence to read as follows:
"The reports determined that Features 1 and 2 (hereafter referred to as Stream 1 and 2) were streams
and thus eligible for riparian restoration to generate riparian buffer credits and nutrient offset
credits."
New Comment 14 (Paragraph below the Rule Reference box -Currently, everything provided in
Appendix 3 shows that these two ditches meet the rule requirements for buffer mitigation. However,
the revised BPDP does not provide adequate visual representations in appendix or in Figure 4 or
notations in Table 9 that portray buffer mitigation requested on these two ditches. GES also doesn't
provide a draft CE for DWR approval where the statement regarding ditch maintenance can be
shown. Lastly, Currently the CE boundaries show that the ditches are not included in the CE. This
doesn't comply with (o)(8) where the entire ditch footprint must be within the easement boundaries.
GES must own rights to the ditch for buffer credit to be sought. Ditch 5 is the only ditch where that
could be a problem if the ditch is shared by an adjacent landowner. Ditch 3 should meet this criteria,
as long as the entire ditch footprint is included in the CE, even though it can't be included in the
assets.
DWR Response: GES needs to rewrite parts of this BPDP and use similar language such as
follows: GES has included Appendix 3 to confirm that Ditches 3 & 5 meet all requirements
identified in Rule 0295 (o)(8) to be used to generate buffer mitigation from riparian restoration
Page 3 of 4

activities.... Table 9 and the corresponding Figure 4 show where buffer credits and nutrient offset
credits are being sought on the different features onsite. A draft Conservation Easement is
provided in Appendix ?? to show where GES intends to insert language prohibiting future
maintenance of Ditch 3 & 5 ... etc.
New Comment 15 (Figure 4 & Table 9) -The revised BPDP includes a table (table 9) & a figure 4
that are supposed to show credit assets on the mitigation site. However, these two do not match.
Figure 4 also does not show me where buffer credits are being sought or where nutrient offsets are
being sought. See other comments above regarding the same thing.
DWR Response: A figure needs to be provided to match the credit asset table provided in the
text. If GES wants this site to generate buffer credits, it must choose where they are going to
come from (ditch 3? Ditch 5? Stream 1? Stream 2?). If GES wants this site to generate nutrient
offsets, it must choose where they are going to come from (ditch 3? Ditch 5? Stream 1? Stream
2?). Lastly, GES has to show the riparian widths from Top of banks consistent with the way
the buffer mitigation rule is written. Where buffer credits are being requested on ditches, GES
has to show 0-50' width and hatch it or color it to represent "buffer credits". For credits on
streams, you must show the buffer credits in the 0-100' confirming you aren't asking for buffer
beyond the 100', which would yield different ratios/percentages to full credits.
New Comment 16 (Table 1)- Table 1 is provided in the BPDP. But I'm not sure what its relevance is
without seeing a visual that matches it. Currently, GES has not provided a visual representation of
this "areal coverage" where credit assets (buffer or nutrient offset) are provided. Without seeing a
visual, I cannot say that I can approve Table 1 complies with the viability letter or the 0295 rule.
DWR Response: Provide a figure to visually represent your Table 1 or edit Figure 4 to address
other comments that will satisfy this comment as well.
New Comment 17 (Page 10, section 1.2.4)- There is no mentioning of measuring out to the 0-50'
along ditches. I thought GES, based on other changes in the revised BPDP, wanted to use the ditches
for buffer credit.
DWR Response: Please edit as appropriate, based on GES' use of this bank to provide buffer
and nutrient offset credits.
Page 4 of 4