20180196 Ver 1_Catfish Pond Buffer Plan_comments-KM_20190612

tirue 1W6 lan
lv' %*r
t�Dl
Mitigation Plan Checklist for Riparian Restoration Mitigation Sites -created 7/15/13
1I11 ,! II ,^, ,t ' n a.Qd -4re.
D DWR Str am De ermmation— (�3� f1 UU( l� d
arh/� a p Project Name:
tr"DWR Site Viability Letter I C a4 -Ash, Pmd
�te Location
o Directions including Lat & Long
y 8 -digit HUC Wor 14 digit (if applicable)
_% County
EMC approved Soil map, Topo and Aerial Maps
Sub -watershed where applicable
Reviewed By:
VO-+i�-
• M-60NUO LGRA
Date— co
b (E;�Existing Site Conditions w/ photos ' 1 WitW
Ste+ S `r pho i�All proposed mitigation activities ncluding a brief summary of stream and/or wetland mitigation w/
(, I2. 4 sin L Jd to c.
�\ h U ^ re �R,� e hud �5 d � ��AA��P� �S keef
d r a detailed plantin pla101,4 �
�D r �onn &Maintenance Plan - �dc� -�ine� VI lP 1V Q UA W� r t% �C
hR�i -1'o S+�e_ ,-�,� ,per ��,, Uor`^-Xv`'2-in'tt❑
Financial Assurance (if applicable)
qh pU�a ❑ Associated buffer and/or nutrient offset credit talcs, which shall include credit generation, service
area, etc. t Mt�S�b � RAp} +1 Nt) G Lobe". 5.1�1-rt c �SRI 4° X20'
❑ Credit Determination Table/Map - 3jU- CvY`^[�lW_tt d WAGLV � b L41
°c��
- - �VLV
Verification that the site does not have an impact on threatened or endangered species „Je_ So-
Verification
a
Verification that the site is not affected by on-site or nearby sources of contamination as provided
C by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
L .
'6 Verification that the site can be constructed on land if it is an archaeological site;
10D� dorm
f7 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
4
Land Resources, NCGO10000 Stormwater Permit from NCDWQ, 404 permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification from NCDWQ).

Catfish Pond Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan DWR# 2018-0196
DWR staff (Katie Merritt) Comments submitted 6/12/2019:
1. General Mitigation Plan & Buffer Plan comments:
a. The use of the term "buffer" or "riparian buffer" is 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 subject to the
rule are Neuse Riparian Buffers. Therefore, please correct applicable references to
"buffer" or "riparian buffer" and replace incorrect references with "riparian areas"
or "riparian restoration".
b. The DWR Stream Determination letter for this site dated 3/12/18 was not included
in the mitigation plan or in Appendix 12. Please include.
c. Where plan sheets, figures and appendices of the Stream Mitigation Plan have
relevant information for the buffer plan, those items should be referenced in the
buffer plan to assist DWR with the review. Otherwise, things can be mistakenly
overlooked. Example: pond design sheets, Ditch D shown on plan sheets, Planting
Plan details, Invasive Species plan, etc.
d. Table 8a & 8b Project Area & Assets — changes and corrections are needed .
• Based on comments made under Table 8b, it appears there are areas less than
50', less than 29' and less than 20' widths, but none of those areas are depicted
on Table 8a as receiving buffer credit at reduced amounts. Are those areas
included in the buffer credits shown in Table 8a? Explain and correct assets
where necessary.
• Figures 6 and 9 do not provide reach information, therefore it is difficult to
compare those two figures to see the areas referenced under table 8b.
• Text under the table 8b states there is a difference of 5,597 ft2 due to the
widths being less than the required 50'. However, I don't see that detailed out or
shown in the figures referenced. If the area is small and you can zoom in to the
area, that may be helpful
• The creditable acreage is shown out to 4 decimal places on Table 8b. Explain
why they aren't rounded to the nearest hundredth as is normally requested by
DWR.
2. Section 4.1—
a. USFWS had concerns about sediment impacts from this site on aquatic species.
Please indicate how sediment impacts to the stream will be prevented during
construction.
b. WRC letter dated 3/21/18 requested biodegradable erosion control measures that
are wildlife friendly. Explain how this request is being acknowledged.
3. Section 6.0 -
Page 1 of 2

a. Diffuse flow needs to be maintained in all riparian areas generating buffer mitigation
or nutrient offsets. The DWR stream determination letter called the ditch entering
UT1 near reach 2 a Ditch. Plan sheets (Sheet 5.4) show this ditch going through the
proposed buffer restoration area. The ditch also extends beyond the conservation
easement boundary. Please explain how diffused will be maintained by the
inclusion of Ditch D.
b. Plan sheet 2.6 shows the stream restoration through the Pond and should therefore
be referenced in this section to assist in DWR review.
c. Details on how the pond will be breached, efforts made to reduce sediment loss,
stabilization measures, drawdown, etc aren't provided but are needed so that DWR
can make an informed decision that the pond restoration will be done with the least
impact to streams as possible. IF these details are in the Stream Plan, then
reference the applicable section here to assist in DWR review.
d. It is recommended that a statement be added to this section that reads similar to,
"Riparian restoration and enhancement will occur adjacent to mitigated streams
onsite"
e. No detailed planting plan is referenced in this section, however plan sheets were
provided in Appendix 7 detailing where trees would be planted. Include reference.
f. The invasive species plan is pertinent to this buffer plan and should be referenced in
this section
g. Correct buffer mitigation rule citation in section 6.3. it should be .0295 (o) instead of
.0296 (0)(6)
4. Section 8.0 —
a. Add that planted stems in the monitoring plots will all be flagged.
b. Include applicable items from Table 15 of the Stream plan and add to this section.
c. Vigor needs to be added to 8.2 as a measurement during monitoring. Add height
measurements.
5. Section 9.0, second paragraph states that "no livestock, fencing, or internal crossing changes
are currently present or planned by the landowner". Can you explain the meaning of this
sentence considering there are livestock and fencing currently present.
6. Overall, if the riparian restoration and enhancement is done according to the plan and
addresses all comments and corrections provided by DWR, the site should provide a good
buffer mitigation and nutrient offset project.
Page 2of2