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

2. History Process started within DWQ in 2006
G.S required the Division to adopt rules concerning “alternative measures (of buffer mitigation)
Stakeholder Process
Presented at 11 WQC meetings
Permanent Rule passed by EMC May 2013
RRC received 10 letters of objection
SL : “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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Proposed Modifications to Rule

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

8. (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

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

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

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

12. 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

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

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

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

16. (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

17. Questions?