Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 July 9, 2015

History Process started within DWQ in 2006 G.S. 143-214.20 required the Division to adopt rules concerning “alternative measures (of buffer mitigation) Stakeholder Process 2009-2010 Presented at 11 WQC meetings 2009-2012 Permanent Rule passed by EMC May 2013 RRC received 10 letters of objection SL 2014-95: “No later than October 1, 2014, the Environmental Management Commission shall adopt a Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers Rule pursuant to G.S. 150B‑21.1. The rule adopted pursuant to this section shall be substantively identical to the recommended rule text contained in the April 10, 2014, Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule Stakeholder Report.” Temporary Rule effective October 24, 2014 Temporary Rule expires July 21, 2015

Public Process Public Notice – February 17, 2015 Public Comment Period February 17, 2015 through April 17, 2015 10 Written Comments received 1 set of comments received for 3 organizations Public Hearing – March 12, 2015 in Raleigh 5 Attendees, no oral comments received

Outline of Proposed Rule Purpose Applicability Permittees and Mitigation Providers Mitigation Requirements Total amounts, location restrictions Mitigation Options for Applicants Mitigation Site Requirements Restoration and Enhancement Requirements Alternative Mitigation Options Requirements

Benefits of Proposed Rule Easier to understand Consistent across basins/watersheds Greater flexibility for compliance Increases number of sites and options for buffer mitigation Provides value to communities, homeowners and developers Consistent with the principles in Executive Order 70 and SB781

Proposed Modifications to Rule

(b) Definitions Preservation – removed reference to Omernik ecoregion Riparian Buffer Mitigation Unit – clarified Stems – definition added

(f) Locational Ratio Change “In the adjacent eight digit HUC” to “Outside of the eight-digit HUC” to address an inadvertent omission and remove requirement that applicant describe why buffer mitigation within the eight digit HUC is not practical

(h) Mitigation Options for Applicants Modified language to be consistent with G.S. 143-214.20 Removed requirement for “a written demonstration of practicality..”

(l)(2)(B) Mitigation Site Requirements Correct inadvertent omission in language Added “as appropriate” to language

(l)(6) Retroactive Credit Modified language to include the requirements for submittal to the Division to apply for retroactive buffer mitigation credit

Retroactive Credit & Fiscal Note Relocated within the rule to clearly allow for any type of project to receive retroactive credit, not just alternative projects Required modification of the Fiscal Note. Addendum 2 to Fiscal Note approved by OSBM in June 2015

(n)(1) Buffer Width Credit Modified Buffer Width Credit table to better align with scientific research:

(n)(2)(B) & (E) Vegetation Plan Modified language to provide clarity and allow for success criteria to drive mitigation plan approval:

(n)(4) Vegetation Monitoring Reports Modified language to provide flexibility for reporting schedule Modified language to align with (n)(2)(B) and (E)

(o) Alternative Mitigation Options Removed introductory statement as unclear Modified language on limiting preservation credits to be a site restriction rather than a restoration/enhancement requirement Clarified that EMC approval of other alternative options is for types of mitigation rather than specific sites and included more specific criteria

Questions?