20180854 Ver 1_DWR Comments_20190517

Mitigation Plan Checklist for Riparian Restoration Mitigation Sites -created 7/15/13
\ sa�fl
l0 DWR Stream Determination -- '�� I In ftr� (11h `�► Pan y
( vtC Project Name:
12�DWR Site Viability Letter w j A 0 � CQp
VJ C_ CK � � SI"
/Site Location Seo n
S Q UrIU9 P CO d )� Reviewed By:
o�[Sirections including Lat & Long lQ I pW Z. ) Q
�,o-�8-digit HUC &/or 14 digit (if applicable)
o/County
NEMC approved Soil map, Topo and Aerial Maps
o--,"Sub-watershed where applicable
DWR # o�C) l 15 - VCSLJ
Date 5 R-1 t lCl
Existing Site Conditions w/ photos — r\0 Ci(J ' 6v\- pl CS " vokv\ -�M(kn 7
All proposed mitigation activities, including a brief summary of stream and/or wetland mitigation w/
a detailed planting_Olan ' WJ -�U 4��� n , iI
�► S nIt +1A
,e( Monitoring &Maintenance Plan - Oa Cgs1)M4 1';3SUS
LO Financial Assurance (if applicable)
14 Associated buffer and/or nutrient offset credit calcs, which shall include credit generation, service
area, etc.
L Credit Determination Table/Map eAA'S jQi V3 ! '� U C� e -I -S
mG ��, 6t+t-�lJbk(Y,kWfJ oto
Verification that the site does not have an impact on threatened or endangered species
Verification that the site is not affected by on-site or nearby sources of contamination as provided
nn
by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
�-4�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
`I- Land Resources, NCG010000 Stormwater Permit from NCDWQ, 404 permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification from NCDWQ).
rro
� ncn Zuni I I or ZC�-4 CQ 01+a 4rrn rp H pan an, aew )aln( -uJ d W
- b
U•�� � � R � s v� � �h� �i-��.e�rQ�i-iG��m ,

Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan DWR# 2018-0854
DWR staff (Katie Merritt) Comments submitted 5/15/19:
1. General Plan comments
a. This mitigation plan is written as if it is a proposal. However, it has come to the
Division of Water Resources' (DWR) attention that this site has already been planted
without DWR approval of the mitigation plan. The DWR viability letter issued for
this site (which is included in Appendix D), as well as the rules governing buffer
mitigation (Rule .0295) and nutrient offsets (Rule .0240), all require DWR approval
prior to implementation of mitigation activities (planting, disking, etc). How will
DMS address this non-compliance?
b. The terms "buffer" and "riparian buffer" are used too loosely throughout the plan.
These terms should only be used to describe an area that is within the Neuse
Riparian Buffer. For this site, only the first 50' adjacent to streams 131, below flag at
B-2 and below the flag at B-3 are Neuse Riparian Buffers. Therefore, please correct
applicable references to "buffer" or "riparian buffer" and replace with "riparian
areas".
c. Not all the site photos provided in the Appendix are dated. During site visits, the
Division observed a high number of invasive species and brush along portions of A-1,
B-2 & B-3. However, some of the pictures provided appear to show those areas
mowed. Please clarify.
d. Please include the DWR Stream Determination letter for this site in the mitigation
plan. In places where the mitigation plan has stream attributes provided by or
decisions made by the provider (section 1.2 (c)), remove them and replaced with the
decisions made by DWR in the letter dated September 24, 2018 to avoid confusion.
Please add references to the newly included DWR Stream Determination Letter.
e. Table 2 Project Area & Assets — changes and corrections are needed
■ Ditch segments along B-2 (132) and B-3 (C) begin upstream from the DWR
flags as indicated in the table below from the DWR stream determination
letter. Buffer Credit along ditches can only be generated within areas that
are at least 30' but a maximum of 50'. Therefore, this table needs to show
the ditches as separate rows and only providing buffer credit within 0-50'.
The corresponding Figure 8A needs to be updated to show this as well.
Page 1 of 3

Stream
E111P'
Not
Subject
StartlD
Stop@
Subject
18-0$54
P
x
Flag: 18-0854 V2 A
Flag: 15-0854 V2 A End
V2 A
Be&
18-0854
Ditrh
x
Flag! 18-0854 V2 B
Flag! 18-0854 V2 B E{I
V2 B
Begin
1$x$54
1
x
Flag' 18-4854 V2 B
Flag! 18854 V2 B End
V2 B
E{I
18.0854
Ditch
X
Flag; 18-0854 V2 C
Flag; 18-0854 V2 C End
V2 C
1
Begin
18.0954
P
x
Flag; 184854 V2 D
Flag: 18-6554 V2 D End
V2 0
Begln
■ For the preservation table, add a column to the right of the "Creditable
Area" and title this column "Eligible Credit Area*". In this column, enter the
maximum amount of credits allowed by the applicable rule referenced at the
bottom of the table.
2. Section 2.0 —
a. Clarify that the buffer credits along the two ditches begin above the DWR flags (see
table in comment 1 (e) above) and meet the minimum 30' and maximum 50' width
requirement as outlined in the Rule 0295 (0)(8).
b. Update figure 8A to reflect these corrections along the ditch reaches of Streams B-2
and B-3.
c. Changes to acreages and square footages will need be made throughout the
mitigation plan text, including applicable tables and figures when comment (a) is
addressed.
d. There is reference to the Conservation Easement in Mitigation Plan in the section
discussing no ditch maintenance to comply with Rule 0295 (0)(8). However, that
language is not specified. Please add references to specific section, subparagraph,
item, etc from the Conservation Easement.
e. Where using term "buffer area", please use "buffer mitigation area" or "area
proposed for buffer mitigation". Then, remove the area (amount of square feet)
that doesn't qualify for buffer mitigation.
f. Diffuse flow needs to be maintained in all riparian areas generated buffer mitigation
or nutrient offsets. For clarity, use the language "Neuse buffer & other riparian
areas" instead of "buffer" in places where you want to include all areas.
g. Table 2 is the project area and asset table. However, I think this table is referenced
as 3b in the text and in table of contents. Please clarify.
3. Table 2 (or "Table 3b"?) —
a. Update this table to add ditches B2 & B3 on separate rows from other reaches and
show their widths as 30-50' or 0-50' depending on which is most appropriate.
b. Add another row for ditches B2 & B3 showing widths 51-100' (if that's the maximum
width). This would be the area that is NOT viable for buffer credit but is viable for
Nutrient Offsets if that is desired by DMS. DWR recommends adding a separate
Page 2of3

table to show Nutrient Offset only areas like these. Especially since these numbers
do not get calculated in the Preservation amounts.
c. Update "Eligible Preservation Area" to deduct the square footage originally pulled
from the areas greater than 50' along the two ditches.
d. Add a column to the right of "Creditable Area" and title it "Eligible Preservation
Area" or whatever it should be based on conversations we have had. This is where
you will show the maximum area (square footage) of the creditable area that can be
used to meet the 25%.
4. Section 3.2 —
a. Bald Cypress is considered a softwood and therefore does not fit the required
performance standard outlined in the Rule .0295 for planting "Hardwoods".
However, as stated in .0295 (n)(2)(B), "DWR may approve alternative vegetation
plans upon consideration of factors, including site wetness and plant availability".
Therefore, please explain why this species and not another species, is necessary to
be planted at this site so DWR can consider your proposal to plant these species and
count it towards your performance standard. It is recommended that a plan view of
the planting plan be provided as well, to show where bald cypress is to be planted.
5. Section 4.0 —
a. Is the Baseline Monitoring Report also the "AsBuilt Report"?
b. What is the anticipated monitoring year?
c. Update plan to reflect that planted stems in the monitoring plots will all be flagged.
d. DWR would prefer that this site commit to monitoring vegetation data no earlier
than late August. This is consistent with what DWR has requested in other provider's
plans.
6. Figure 8A — previous comments indicate that this figure needs to be corrected. Therefore,
use the coordinates provided in comment 1 above to show where the ditch and stream
reaches are for B-1 & B-2. Add the 0-50' width boundary adjacent to ditch reaches.
7. Overall, if the riparian restoration, enhancement and preservation is done according to the
plan and all DWR comments and corrections are addressed, the site should provide a good
buffer mitigation and nutrient offset project.
Page 3 of 3