20170921 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2019 (Buffer)_20200123

ID#* 20170921 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/27/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/23/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r Stream r Wetlands W Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
LINDSAY CROCKER
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20170921
Existing IDI
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Major Hill
County: Alamance
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Pages from Major Hill _100015_MY1_2019.pdf 2.85MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* LINDSAY CROCKER
Signature:*
.,cry. �`��-aE,��•

RIPARIAN BUFFER MYI (2019) MONITORING REPORT
MAJOR HILL MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin — Haw River Arm
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
November 2019
This project with conforms with the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A
NCAC 02B . 0295, effective November 1, 2015 and the Jordan Lake Buffer Protection Rule (15A
NCAC 02B . 0267 & I5A NCAC 02B . 0268)

January 23, 2020
Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Subject: Major Hill —Year 1 (2019) Monitoring Report
Cape Fear 02 River Basin, Contract 007193, Alamance County, DMS Project No. 100015
Ms. Crocker,
Below is the response from Restoration Systems to all comments received from DMS regarding the Year
1, 2019, Heron Monitoring Report. DMS comments are in black, and our responses are in blue. Please do
not hesitate to reach out if you would like to discuss.
Sincerely,
000r. !✓
Worth Creech
Project Manager
Comments Received & Responses
Electronic Deliverables:
• Calculation of BHR (using a fixed AB Bankfull Area), XSA, and Max depth are to completed using
TOB in keeping with methods specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup memorandum based
on the current year's low bank height. Please review morph data from compliance and
consistency with these methods.
Bank height ratio calculations were reviewed and are all being calculated using the methods from
the Industry Technical Work Group memorandum. To be consistent with other 2019 DMS
monitoring reports, a row showing LTOB Elevation was added to the cross-section summary data
on the cross-section graphs.
• Include a footnote upon verification to the effect, "Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the
As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR
Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the
NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018)."
This footnote was added to tables 12A and 1 ?C
• The other parameters can be left blank or the basis for their calculation needs to be clearly
footnoted.
In a 1/17/20 phone discussion with DMS project manager, Lindsay Crocker, it was determined
that the above footnote regarding bank height ratio would be sufficient, and that other
parameters may remain in the table.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

General Report and Riparian Buffer Appendix:
• Although the vegetation changes from MYO to MY1 appear normal, there are some trees that
increased from MYO to MY1 (hornbeam, persimmon, water oak). DMS understands that this is
likely due to mis-ID that occurs in dormant season at MYO or further refinement of species (oak
spp being IDed as water oak), but if this is the case please add a footnote under table 8 for
reviewer clarity.
A footnote was added that reads the following: "The increases in stem counts of species such as
Carpinus caroliniana, Diospyros virginiana, and Quercus nigra are due to mis-identification during
MYO (dormant season) monitoring and/or refinement in identification during MY1 monitoring."
• Table 2. Be prepared with exact dates for MYO and MY1 vegetation monitoring. The IRT will be
checking to ensure at least 6 months of growing season between monitoring.
Asbuilt and MY1 stream and vegetation monitoring dates were added to table 2.
• Although it is explained well and understood the issues with RIDS gauges, be prepared to explain
this to IRT at credit release. It was prudent to replace gauges for future years.
We will be prepared to explain the data loss, and the gauges will be replaced prior to the 2020
growing season.
The mitigation plan states that soil temperature data is required to use the March 1 growing
season. Please provide this data or describe results in the monitoring report to justify.
The footnote below the Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year table
was revised to read the following: "An onsite soil temperature data logger installed 12 inches
below the ground surface read 47.9OoF on March 1, and the soil temperature remained well
above 41oF thereafter."
• Table 10 and Table 5 of the riparian buffer appendix has a column called 'tract mean.' Suggest
removing this column. The vegetation plot that is not meeting is 1 stem short of meeting riparian
buffer success and 2 stems short of meeting stream and wetland project success and that number
may be misleading.
The "Tract Mean" column was deleted in table 10 of the main document and table 5 of the riparian
buffer appendix.
Page 2 of 2

Table of Contents
1.0
MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY.......................................................................................1
2.0
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................2
3.0
RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, & PRESERVATION PLAN.....................2
3.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities....................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Site Preparation...........................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Planting....................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities ................................................ 4
3.3 Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities................................................................................... 5
3.4 Marsh Treatment Area............................................................................................................. 5
4.0
ANNUAL MONITORING............................................................................................................. 5
4.1 Monitoring............................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Performance Standards............................................................................................................ 6
4.3 Results and Discussion............................................................................................................ 6
4.4 Maintenance and Management................................................................................................ 6
5.0
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8
Table 1.
Buffer Project Attributes .....................
Table 2.
Buffer Project Areas and Assets .........
Table 3.
Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 4.
Riparian Buffer Monitoring ................
Table 5.
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals......
Table 6.
Total Stems by Plot and Species.........
Attachment 1
Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
Tables
.......................................................................................1
....................................................................................... 3
....................................................................................... 4
....................................................................................... 5
....................................................................................... 6
....................................................................................... 7
Attachments
MY] (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Table of Contents
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY
The Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 16.7
acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. The Site is located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of Snow Camp and 6 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line. Project attributes are included in the following table.
Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes
Project Name
Major Hill
Hydrologic Unit Code
3030002050050
River Basin
Cape Fear
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35.873206,-79.360906
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
(2789, 896), (2514, 756), (3143, 270), (3150, 920)
Total Credits (BMU)
402,837
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, & Preservation
Mitigation Plan Date
Apr-18
Initial Planting Date
Dec 2018-Jan 2019
Baseline Report Date
Mar-19
MY Report Date
Nov-19
MY2 Report Date
MY3 Report Date
MY4 Report Date
MY5 Report Date
The Site drainage area is primarily composed of pasture, forest, agriculture land, and sparse residential
property. Impervious surfaces account for less than five percent of the upstream land surface.
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of pasture, hayfields, disturbed forest, and agricultural land
used for livestock grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, and stream
banks were eroded vertically and laterally and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs. Riparian
zones in the upper reaches of UT 1 were primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that was sparse and
disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular land -management activities. The downstream
reaches of UT 1 and all of UT 3 were primarily wooded with livestock disturbance to stream channels. UT
2 was the lone tributary not subjectto continuous, unrestricted livestock access. Riparian areas immediately
adjacent to UT 2 were forested with a fence to protect this area from livestock access.
The riparian areas were restored in concurrence with the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
(NC DMS Project ID 10015, SAW-2017-01472) and involved restoring riparian buffers adjacentto restored
streams to help reduce non -point source contaminant discharges to downstream waters in the Haw River
sub -watershed of Jordan Lake. All riparian areas were assessed by DWR (Katie Merritt and Sue
Homewood) during an onsite visit February 20', 2018 to determine viability for buffer mitigation.
The Site is protected with a permanent conservation easement. Riparian restoration, enhancement, and
preservation area widths adjacent to restored streams extend out to a maximum of 200 feet from the top of
MY] (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Page I
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

stream banks with a minimum width of 50 from the top of banks. Riparian buffer enhancement and
preservation credits generated on this Site are allowed pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o). No riparian
restoration areas that are less than 20 feet wide from Top of Banks are used to generate riparian buffer
credit.
Riparian buffer mitigation credit was not generated in areas that are generating wetland mitigation credit.
2.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Credit determination for this Site follows the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015 (see Table 2 on the following page and Figure A,
Attachment 1).
3.0 RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, & PRESERVATION PLAN
This Site was also proposed as a stream and wetland mitigation project; therefore, restoration of riparian
areas was accomplished through the goals and methods outlined by the Major Hill Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan. All applicable federal, state, and local documentation, permits, and/or authorizations were
acquired as part of implementing the above -mentioned mitigation plan.
Primary goals focused on 1) improving water quality, 2) enhancing flood attenuation and hydrology, 3)
improving aquatic resources, and 4) restoring riparian habitat. Completed mitigation provides floodplain
connectivity, floodplain resistance, stream stability, sediment transport, surface and subsurface storage and
retention, in -stream habitat, riparian habitat and structure, thermal regulation, floodplain biogeochemical
processing, and pollutant filtration as well as remove sources of pollutants. The riparian area will be restored
through the revegetation of native plant communities.
3.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
3.1.1 Site Preparation
Soil grading occurred during stream restoration activities. Topsoils were stockpiled during construction
activities and spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade was established. The replaced topsoil will
serve as a viable growing medium for community restoration to provide nutrients and aid in the survival of
planted species.
Farm Pond Removal
To complete the stream and wetland restoration activities and subsequent riparian buffer restoration, the
removal of a small farm pond, —0.58 acres occurred. Stream, wetland and riparian area restoration within
the abandoned pond included 1) notching the dam to dewater; 2) removal of the dam to the elevation of the
adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating sediment that is unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4) backfllling
areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel construction (as necessary); 5) excavation of the
design channel, 6) stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of
structures.
MY] (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Page 2
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 2. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
RIPARIAN BUFFER (15A NCAC
02B.0295)
Location
Jurisdictional
Restoration
Streams
Type
Subject &
Rural
Nonsubject
Restoration
Subject &
Rural
Nonsubject
Restoration
Rural
Subject
Enhancement
Location Jurisdictional Restoration
Streams I Type
Rural Nonsubject Preservation
Rural Nonsubject Preservation
Initial
Final
o7a
Reach ID/
Buffer
Creditable
Credit
Credit
Full
Component
Width (ft)
Area (sf)*
Ratio
Ratio
Credit
(x:1)
(x:1)
1
0-100
213,290
1
100%
1.00000
2
101-200
40,976
1
33%
3.03030
3
0-100
341,433
2
100%
2.00000
SUBTOTALS
595,699
Initial
Final
o7a
Credit
Credit
Full
Ratio
Ratio
Credit
(x:1)
(x:1)
Riparian
Convertible to
Buffer
Nutrient
Credits
Offset (Yes or
(BMU)
No)
213,290.000
Yes
13,522.094
Yes
170,716.500
No
397,528.594
Riparian
Buffer
Credits
5 100% 5.00000 5,122.800
5 33% 15.15152 185.724
5,308.524
402,837.117
*Area eligible for preservation may be no more than 25% of total area, where total area is back -calculated with the equation R+E/0.75.
*Buffers must be at minimum 20' wide for riparian buffer credit, buffers must be 50' wide for nutrient offset credit
*When preservation areas exceed the total eligible preservation area, select the areas with the best credit ratios as the creditable areas.
ELIGIBLE
PRESERVATION AREA
198,566
Reach ID/
Component
Buffer
Width (ft)
Creditable
Area (sf)*
4
0-100
25,614
5
101-200
2,814
SUBTOTALS
28,428
TOTALS
624,127
If Converted to
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient
Offset: N
(lbs)
Nutrient
Offset: P
(lbs)
11129.775
716.842
2138.186
137.715
0.000
0.000
13,267.960
854.558
MYI (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) AppendixF: page 3
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

3.1.2 Planting
Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forests will be planted at a
density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Species in the stream -side assemblage and
Marsh Wetland Treatment Areas were planted at a density of approximately 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot
centers. The following table summarizes planted bare root stems within the Site.
Table 3. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Species
Piedmont/Low
Mountain
Alluvial Forest
Dry-Mesic
Oak/Hickory
Forest
Marsh
Treatment
Wetland
sseemblambla a
Ass
Assemblage
Total
Acres
1.1
5.5
0.01
1.5
8.11
Alnus serrulata
5
20
25
Asimina triloba
200
200
Betula nigra
100
200
300
Carpinus caroliniana
600
600
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
5
20
25
Cercis canadensis
500
500
Cornus amomum
95
5
800
900
Diospyros virginiana
450
450
Fraxinus americana
100
100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
150
750
900
Liriodendron tulipifera
75
75
Nyssa sylvatia
600
600
Platanus occidentalis
120
780
900
Quercus nigra
110
790
500
1,400
Quercus phellos
100
700
400
1,200
Salix nigra*
400*
400
Sambucus canadensis
11
14
25
TOTALS
750
3,740
26
4,084
8,600
Stems/Acre
682
680
2600
2722
1060
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted; all other planted species were planted as bare root plants.
3.2 Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities
Riparian buffer enhancement included permanently protecting existing riparian buffer from livestock via
exclusionary fencing, cutting, clearing, filling, grading, and any similar activities that would affect the
functionality of the riparian buffer. These areas are defined primarily as disturbed mixed hardwoods. Buffer
credits sought in the enhancement area are allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6). The enhancement
AltY1 (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 4
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

area extends a maximum of 200 feet from the top of the bank with a minimum width of 20 from top of
banks.
A small portion of UT-3 is generating riparian buffer enhancement credit from only one side of the stream.
Prior to construction, cattle had access to the entire area; however, the only access point was from the
pasture on the northern side of the stream, the Parcel owned by Mr. Lamm. Once fencing was installed to
prevent cattle access from Mr. Lamm's parcel to the stream, cattle will no longer be able to access the south
side of the stream. This action will result in compliance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6), which states
that the permanent exclusion of grazing livestock must be done such that the livestock are fenced out of the
stream and its adjacent buffer. The southern parcel, which is not apart of the conservation easement, is
owned by the Caviness family and is a single-family home. Cattle will not be grazing within their parcel
post construction.
3.3 Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities
Riparian buffer preservation includes permanently protecting existing riparian buffers from cutting,
clearing, filling, grading, and any similar activities that would affect the functionality of the riparian buffer.
Areas specified for Preservation at the Site, in accordance with 15A NCAC 0213.0295, are defined primarily
as mixed hardwoods, with the number of high -value species above 200 per acre. They are areas where
livestock were fenced out prior to construction with little or no historical livestock access.
3.4 Marsh Treatment Area
A marsh treatment area was constructed to intercept surface waters draining through agricultural
areas before discharging into UT1. The marsh treatment area is excluded from credit calculations.
4.0 ANNUAL MONITORING
4.1 Monitoring
Eight vegetation monitoring plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the Site as per guidelines
established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008); this covers 3.4%
of the area generating riparian buffer restoration credit. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually in the
fall (between September and November), prior to the loss of leaves for a period of five monitoring years
following planting. Parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual
observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by photograph.
In addition, inspections for beaver and other potential nuisance species will occur throughout the course of
the monitoring period.
The following table outlines riparian buffer monitoring for this project; monitoring parameter descriptions
follow.
Table 4. Riparian Buffer Monitoring
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Eight (8) plots
Vegetation will be monitored for five years or until
Yes
Vegetation
located across all
Annual
performance standards are met. Visual monitoring of the
restored buffer
site will be done all five years. Analysis of vegetation
zones.
will be recorded using level 2 CVS Monitoring protocol.
Yes
Project
NA
Annual
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary
Boundary
encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
MY] (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 5
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

4.2 Performance Standards
Performance standards were established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development and the maintenance of diffuse flow through the riparian buffer
in accordance with North Carolina Division of Water Resources Administrative Code 15A NCAC
0213.0295 (Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers).
Performance standards are dependent upon the density and growth of at least four native hardwood tree
species where no one species is greater than 50% of the stems. After five years of monitoring, an average
density of 260 woody stems per acre, including planted shrubs (silky dogwood and blueberry), must be
surviving, and diffuse flow maintained. 15A NCAC 02b .0295 (2)(E) dictates that monitoring for planted
stems would also include the health of planted stems. Level 2 CVS monitoring protocol requires the vigor,
a determinant of health, of a monitored stem be recorded. If requested, RS will make available during the
monitoring years, planted stem health, e.g. vigor.
4.3 Results and Discussion
Based on the number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 511 planted hardwood tree
stems per acre (excluding livestakes, shrubs, pines, and vines) at year 1 (2019). In addition, all but 1
individual plot met success criteria. The following Table 5 summarizes riparian buffer success criteria and
Table 6 summarizes all vegetation data by species, plot, and year. Vegetation plot photographs are included
in Appendix B of the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Year 1 (2019) Annual Monitoring
Report.
Table 5. Ri arian Buffer Vegetation Totals
Plot #
Success Criteria
Met?
MY 1 (2019)
Planted Stems/Ac
MY 1 (2019)
All Stems/Ac
1
No
202
202
2
Yes
404
404
3
Yes
566
566
4
Yes
647
647
5
Yes
404
404
6
Yes
567
607
7
Yes
647
647
8
Yes
728
930
T-1
Yes
405
--
T-2
Yes
486
--
Average Planted
Stems/Acre
Yes
509
551
4.4 Maintenance and Management
No maintenance or management activities are currently planned for the coming year, and no remedial action
activities are necessary at this time.
MY-1 (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 6
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 6. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 17.009. Project Name: Major Hill
Current Plot Data (MY1 2019)
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
17.009-01-0001
17.009-01-0002
17.009-01-0003
17.009-01-0004
17.009-01-0005
17.009-01-0006
17.009-01-0007
17.009-01-0008
MY1(2019)*
MYO(2019)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
3
3
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
7
7
7
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
6
6
9
9
9
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
11
31
3
3
6
6
6
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
14
14
14
5
5
5
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
3
3
3
8
8
8
14
14
14
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
9
9
5
5
5
Fraxinus
ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
10
10
10
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
7
7
8
7
7
7
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
23
23
23
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
20
20
20
10
10
10
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
16
16
16
18
18
18
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
6
6
6
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
5
5
5
10
10
10
14
14
14
16
161
16
10
10
10
141
14
15
16
16
16
181
181
23
103
103
109
129
129
129
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.20
41
41
41
61
61
6
71
71
7
91
9
9
51
51
5
7
7JF6;n7
9
9
9
7
7
9
15
15
17
16
16
16
202.3
202.3
202.3
404.7
404.7
404.7
566.E
566.E
566.E
647.5
647.5
647.5
404.7
404.7
404.7
566.E
566.E
647.5
647.5
647.5
728.4
728.4
930.8
521
521
551.4
652.E
652.E
652.6
*The increases in stem counts of species such as Carpinus caroliniana, Diospyros virginiana, and Quercus nigra are due to mis-identification during MYO (dormant season) monitoring and/or refinement in identification during MY1 monitoring.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

5.0 REFERENCES
Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules 15A NCAC 02B .0267, 15A NCAC 02B .0268, and
15A NCAC 02B .0295
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Version 4.2. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities ofNorth Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
MY-1 (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 8
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

ATTACHMENT 1
Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
AltY1 (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Page 9
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Legend
Easement
New Fencing Installed for Cattle Exclusion
- Existing Fencing Left in Place for Cattle Exclusion t t
- Fencing Removed/Reworked for Cattle Exclusion 1 I
- Stream AsbuiltTOB-TOB i
® ) \
Marsh Treatment Area �1
Plot Origins
CVS Plots Meeting Success Criteria MY1
CVS Plots Not MeetingSuccess Criteria MY1
- Wetland Restoration `,rl �•,y�t
Wetland Enhancement 7 (!
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Type
TOB - 100 ft. Restoration (1:1) - 213,290 sq ft S \ \ \ \ y
6
101 ft. - 200 ft. Restoration (1:1 but 33 k credit per Rule)-40,976 sq ft
TOB - 100 ft. Enhancement (2:1 Cattle Ex. per Rule) - 341,433 sq ft \ \ \ •`_- rr e.
TOB - 100 ft. Preservation (Non -Subject Stream 5:1) - 25,614 sq ft
14.
- 101 ft. -200 ft. Preservation (Non -Subject Stream 5:1 and 33k Credit per Rule) -2,814 sq ft
Non Credit Generating (Less than 20 ft.) A \ \ �� �_/ea+�•�'y`; '\
TOB to 50 feet
I— — 1100 foot Tine
— - l 150 foot line*J ` r
�— 200 foot Tine
I
\ � I
No credit is being
i �' I ,
generated within the �� �� / �'/2 j I'
Marsh Treatment Area.
- �'� j • 1� I .1 � / i 7
mom
IL
•'I
.... �.� � �' �-'-_ � �- -- a--� _ /' _ •.'[ice
\
This area is located
outside of the y j — -- -
i
easement and is � �•�UTc3.
i
not generating credit. ----- — 0 70 140 280 420 560
Feet
Dwn.'By:
FIGURE
Axiom Environmental Riparian Buffer Asset Map Date: CLF
`- 218 Snow Ave Ma or Hill Miti ation Site Nov 2019
Raleigh, NC 27607 1 g
'r [phone] Alamance County, North Carolina Project:
AXI0M Emlmnmmtal. Inc. 17-009

Legend
Easement
"
TT
Stream AsbuiltTOB-TOB
Stream Side Assemblage = 1.5 ac.
tr
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest = 1.1 ac E
- Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest = 5.5 ac
Marsh Treatment Wetland = 0.01 ac'
F '...
1 I
' Y.
n
r
i
�r
ti
% 4*
1
Al-
..G�c.
k.
Ap
T,
I,yCt.Y,c,
.4
. 4f — Y .J- '. ... ,. •, 'Y',' 3
s. °L3 ,�/� .nil. •�Y • .•J���`,,
•' ff
'.'��� `r _: g .,• . _ �:rt"• 8
.�..:
...
_{r- yob'.
A
y' 0
70 140
280 420 560
Feet
Dwn. By: FIGURE
Axiom Environmental
Riparian Buffer Planting Map
Date: KRJ
Snow Ave Ral
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
Major Hill Miti ation Site
1 g
Alamanee County, North Carolina
Feb 2019 B
Project:
AXIOM Emlmnmmtal. Inc.
17-009