20190157 Ver 1_Final Draft Buffer Plan_20200902

ID#* 20190157 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 09/03/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/2/2020
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:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20190157
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Perry Hill Mitigation Site
County: Orange
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: PerryHill_100093_BufferMP_2020.pdf 30.48MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

Appendix 1

RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION PLAN
Final
July 2020
PERRY HILL MITIGATION SITE
Orange County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7744
DMS ID No. 100093
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00125
DWR Project No. 2019-0157
RFP #: 16-007576
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
ad4]r1d4111 WIF
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
497 Bramson Court, Suite 104
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: [phone]

W0.*
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
August 5, 2020
Mr. Jeremiah Dow
Project Manager
NCDEQ- Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
Subject: Comment -Response Letter
Perry Hill Mitigation Site— North Carolina Interagency Review Team Comments during 30-
day Mitigation Plan Review
Neuse River Basin — CU# 03020201
Orange County, NC
Contract No. 7744
Dear Mr. Dow:
On July 27,2020, Wildlands Engineering received comments from DWR related to the Perry Hill Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Plan dated April 2020. The report establishes the proposed buffer mitigation activities
at the project site. The following letter documents DWR's feedback and Wildlands' corresponding
responses and revisions to the plan. Following your acceptance of these responses and revisions, we will
proceed with Task 2 (Conservation Easement Recordation).
DWR Comments, Katie Merritt:
1. Title Page — Cited Regulations: Replace 0233 with .0714. Effective Date is June 15, 2020. Also
replace .0240 with .0703 and rename the rule to "Nutrient Offset Credit Trading" with effective
date is April 1, 2020.
Response: Wildlands revised the title page per the comment above.
2. Section 1.0 — In reviewing the stream mitigation plan as well as this plan, it was unclear whether
DMS is seeking wider buffers for both stream & buffer credit. Please state whether or not
buffers restored beyond 50' are being used towards stream credit.
Response: The buffer adjacent to the stream and within 50 ft of the proposed top of bank will be
restored. However, Wildlands is not proposing buffer restoration for stream credit generation.
3. Table 1— Clarify that fencing will at least be installed around all areas where buffer
enhancement credit is requested, since this is a requirement in 0295 (o)(6).
Response: The 'entire' project area will be fenced. Wildlands clarified in the objective language
and the bullet list in Section 2.2 that the entire area will be fenced.
4. Section 2.1 & Appendix 1a — Site photos are dated May 2019 and do not depict existing
conditions as of the time the Mit Plan was submitted. Provide more recent photos of the
riparian area conditions and describe any changes to the proposed mitigation areas from what
was observed during the 2019 site visit.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 2.1 and revised the photolog. Landuse activities within the
proposed mitigation area have remained consistent since the initial agency site visit.
w Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 843.277.6221 • 497 Bramson Court, Suite 104 • Mount Pleasant, SC 29464

5. Table 2 — Add that the site is located in the Upper Falls Watershed.
Response: Wildlands revised Table 2.
6. Section 2.2, V paragraph — Correct rule reference here to be .0295 (o).
Response: Wildlands revised Section 2.2 to reference the appropriate rule.
7. Section 2.2, Buffer Restoration on Ephemeral Channels 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7) — Explain
how you determined Bullet #2 and include a reference (maybe table 5?). Explain how you
concluded bullet #3. For Bullet #4 correct the rule reference here by excluding subchapter "o."
Response: Wildlands revised Section 2.2 and referenced Table 7a and Figure 3. Wildlands revised
the reference in the fourth bullet.
8. Section 2.2, Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6) — Explain how bullet
#1(livestock exclusion) is achieved. Bullet #2, what is the "enhancement plan?" Is there a
particular section/s where the plan is described? Explain how Bullet #3 was determined. I
recommend referencing Section 2.8 and the Appendix where you have the site viability letter.
Response: Wildlands will exclude livestock via the construction of a perimeter fence that will be
located 2 ft outside the proposed (and illustrated) easement boundary. Wildlands enclosed the
DWR site viability letter in Appendix 1b.
Section 2.8 — Please replace "Katie Merritt" with "DWR."
Response: Wildlands revised the mitigation plan to remove the reference to Katie Merritt.
10. Section 5.0—Add a reference to Figure 10 and explain in the text that nutrient offset credits can
service only the Falls Lake Watershed while buffer credits can serve Neuse 03020201, including
the Falls Lake Watershed.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 5.0 to reflect the service area limitations.
11. Table 7a — I may have many comments to make on this table. I have to delay providing these
comments until I receive clarification from other DWR staff. I will provide those comments
separately to DMS as soon as I'm able.
Response: Wildlands revised Table 7a.
12. Section 6.0, 15` paragraph — Reference the Plan sheets that show the stream mitigation
activities.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 6.0 and referenced the plan sheets (illustrating the stream
mitigation activities) that are enclosed with the Mitigation Plan in Appendix 8.
13. Section 6.1— Parcel preparation is more intense on stream mitigation sites, but this section is
very vague. Add a reference to the Stream Plan where details can be found regarding grading,
mowing, ripping, etc., or please provide more details here regarding site prep work, especially
soil preparations.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 6.1 to include more information related to parcel
preparation.
Page 2

Please indicate that no top soil will be removed from the riparian areas slated for riparian
restoration. The source of fill material for stream mitigation activities should come from another
part of the site where buffer credits are not being sought. With the riparian areas mostly in
compact pasture soils and dense in fescue vegetation, both mowing and ripping should be
proposed for this site.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 6.1.
The Site Viability letter calls out a drainage conveyance B below the ag pond. How will diffuse
flow by this conveyance be addressed.
Response: Wildlands added a floodplain sill downstream of drainage conveyance B to act as a
level spreader and to diffuse flow to the restored stream channel. This will allow for dispersed
overland flow through the restored buffer and into the stable riffle section of Perry Branch.
In the 3rd sentence, please describe "chemical" treatment.
Response: Wildlands will use a select targeted chemical (i.e., glyphosate 2.5%) to treat
undesirable growth and invasive species.
14. Section 6.2— Even though it isn't spelled out here, I appreciate the use of pollinator species in
your seed mixes. Please call this out in the text within this section.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 6.2 to state that pollinator species were included in the
permanent seed mix.
Reference the applicable Plan Sheets where the planting plan is provided in more detail.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 6.2 to reference Section 4 (Planting Plan) of the plan sheets
that are enclosed with the Mitigation Plan, Appendix 8.
Remove tag alder and Red Maple from the Planting Plan. These trees are proposed to be
planted within areas receiving buffer credit, and DWR does not support including these in this
planting plan.
Response: Wildlands removed this species from the planting plan.
A plan to address how fescue will be treated before initial planting efforts should be included in
this section.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 6.2 to include language that details fescue management
activities.
Last paragraph of Section 6.2 references vegetation management. What type of management is
anticipated? please explain this in detail
Response: Wildlands revised Section 6.2 to reference specific vegetation measures. Wildlands will
develop and implement adaptive measures in the event that other invasive species compete with
targeted vegetative communities.
15. Section 6.3 — The Plan sheets showing the fence boundaries should be referenced in this
section. Also, add a note that the Bank is "being proposed to DWR" since it hasn't yet been
reviewed or approved.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 6.3 to reference Section 5 of the plan sheets which illustrate
the fencing plan.
Page 3

16. Section 7.1— Address how fescue will be controlled during the monitoring period.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 7.1. Wildlands intends to treat and control fescue via
chemical and mechanical activities prior to and during construction. Wildlands will monitor
fescue re-establishment and potential adverse impacts to planted vegetation communities
during the monitoring period. Wildlands will implement chemical treatments in the event that
fescue prevents the establishment of the targeted vegetation communities.
17. Section 8.2 — Add height to the parameters that will be evaluated annually. DWR expects the
heights to be included in the reports.
Response: Wildlands revised Section 8.2 and Section 7.1 to include height as a parameter.
18. Figure 2 — Call out start of ephemeral streams as "DWR Ephemeral Point." Call out intermittent
stream start location "DWR Intermittent Point." Label Drainage Conveyance B. Call out start of
intermittent stream on UT1 as "DWR E/I Point."
Response: Wildlands revised Figure 2.
19. Figure 6 — Show the proposed easement boundary for the Perry Hill Mitigation Bank.
Response: Wildlands revised Figure 5 to illustrate the bank boundary.
20. Appendix - No DWR Stream determination letter was included. Please add to Appendix and
reference in Section 2.8 or in other more appropriate sections.
Response: Wildlands enclosed the determination letter in Appendix 1b and included a reference
in Section 2.8.
Thank you for your review and comment on this submittal. If you have any further questions, please
contact me at 843.277.6221 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Daniel Johnson, MBA, PE, PH, Senior Water Resources Engineer
Page 4

This Mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• 15A NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers.
• 15A NCAC 02B .0714 Neuse River Basin Buffer Rule, effective June 15, 2020.
• 15A NCAC 02B .0703, Nutrient Offset Credit Trading, effective April 1, 2020.
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
John Hutton, Principal in Charge
Daniel Johnson, MBA, PE, PH, Project Monoger
Daniel Johnson, MBA, PE, PH, Plan Development/Quality Check
Carolyn Lanza, Monitoring Lead
Andrea Eckardt, QuolityAssuronce

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Introduction............................................................................................................................1
2.0
Mitigation Project Summary....................................................................................................1
2.1 Existing Site Conditions.................................................................................................................
2
2.2 Alternative Mitigation..................................................................................................................
3
2.3 Watershed Characterization.........................................................................................................4
2.4 Soils...............................................................................................................................................4
2.5 Geology.........................................................................................................................................5
2.6 Vegetation....................................................................................................................................
5
2.7 Site Constraints and Access..........................................................................................................
6
2.8 Current Site Resources.................................................................................................................
6
2.9 Historic Site Resources.................................................................................................................
6
3.0
Site Protection Instrument.......................................................................................................6
3.1 Site Protection Instruments Summary Information.....................................................................
6
4.0
Regulatory Considerations.......................................................................................................7
4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species...........................................................................................
7
4.2 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas.........................................................
8
4.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance.......................................................................................................
8
4.4 Other Environmental Issues.........................................................................................................
8
5.0
Determination of Credits.........................................................................................................9
6.0
Mitigation Work Plan............................................................................................................10
6.1 Parcel Preparation......................................................................................................................10
6.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities...........................................................................................
10
6.3 Riparian Area Enhancement via Livestock Exclusion Activities ..................................................
11
7.0
Performance Standards.........................................................................................................11
7.1 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................
11
7.2 Visual Assessments.....................................................................................................................
12
7.3 Reporting Performance Criteria.................................................................................................
12
7.4 Maintenance and Contingency Plans.........................................................................................
12
8.0
Monitoring Plan....................................................................................................................12
8.1 Monitoring Components............................................................................................................
13
8.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................
13
8.3 Visual Assessment and Photo Documentation...........................................................................
13
9.0
Long -Term Management Plan................................................................................................13
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan...................................................................................................14
11.0 References............................................................................................................................15
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page i July 2020

Table 1: Ecological and Water Quality Goals................................................................................................ 2
Table 2: Buffer Project Attributes.................................................................................................................3
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use.......................................................................................4
Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions................................................................................................5
Table 5: Site Protection Instrument..............................................................................................................6
Table 6: Project Attribute Table....................................................................................................................7
Table 7a: Buffer Project Areas and Assets....................................................................................................9
Table 7b: Buffer Project Areas and Assets (Summary).................................................................................9
Table 8: Monitoring Components...............................................................................................................13
FIGURE
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Site Map
Figure 3
Watershed Map
Figure 4
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 5
NRCS 1977 Soils Map
Figure 6
Credit Calculations Map
Figure 7
Riparian Buffer Zones Map
Figure 8
Buffer Monitoring Map
Figure 9
Nutrient Offset Zones Map
Figure 10
Service Area Map
APPENDICES
Appendix 1a Site Photographs
Appendix 1b Agency and Landowner Correspondence
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page ii July 2020

1.0 Introduction
The Perry Hill Mitigation Site (Site) is a riparian buffer and stream mitigation project located in the rural
countryside of Orange County, approximately three miles northwest of Hillsborough, NC (Figure 1). The
Site encompasses approximately 26.877 acres of Perry Branch, three additional unnamed tributaries, and
two ephemeral channels. Currently, the Site is characterized by a mix of active pastures, fields, and
woodlands. The project will restore or enhance via livestock exclusion the riparian area within the project
area, which will provide 878,894.828 buffer credits or 24.896 acres of buffer mitigation.
The Site is located within the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201030020 and North Carolina
Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub -basin 03-04-01. Perry Branch and the three unnamed
tributaries on the Site flow directly to Corporation Lake, a water supply reservoir on the Eno River. The
Eno River is classified as water supply waters (WS-II) and nutrient sensitive waters (NSW). The Eno river
subsequently flows to Falls Lake, which is also classified as water supply waters (WS-IV) and nutrient
sensitive waters (NSW). All water supply waters are considered high quality waters (HOW) by
supplemental classification. In addition, all waters in the Neuse River Basin are classified as NSW which is
a supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being
subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
The 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan lists major stressors in Subbasin 03-04-01 to be total
suspended solids (TSS), nutrients, and chlorophyll a (NCDENR, 2009). The 2010 Neuse River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) highlights the importance of riparian buffers for stream restoration projects
(NCEEP, 2010). Riparian buffers retain and remove nutrients and suspended sediments. Of the 123 miles
of streams in the Middle Eno River watershed (03020201030030), 23% do not have adequate riparian
buffers. The RBRP states that "priority [restoration] projects should increase or improve buffers." The
RBRP also states that a goal for the Neuse 01 is to, "...promote nutrient and sediment reduction in
agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers." Another goal for
the Neuse 01 is to support the Falls Lake Watershed Management Plan.
This riparian buffer mitigation project will reduce sediment and nutrient loading, improve terrestrial and
in stream habitats, and improve stream and bank stability. The area surrounding the streams proposed
for mitigation is a mixture of active pasture, fields, and woodlands. By removing livestock access to onsite
tributaries and restoring and enhancing a forested riparian area; the project will reduce nutrient and
sediment inputs to project streams, and ultimately to Falls Lake. The restored floodplain areas will filter
sediment during rainfall events. The establishment of riparian areas will create shading to minimize
thermal pollution. Finally, invasive vegetation will be treated within the project area as needed and the
proposed native vegetation will provide cover and food for wildlife.
2.0 Mitigation Project Summary
The major goals of this proposed riparian buffer mitigation project are to provide ecological and water
quality enhancements to the Falls Lake watershed of the Neuse River Basin by creating a functional
riparian corridor and restoring the riparian area. Specific riparian area enhancements to water quality and
ecological processes are outlined below in Table 1.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 1 July 2020

Table 1: Ecological and Water Quality Goals
Goal
Objective
CU-Wide and RBRP Objectives Supported
Exclude livestock
Exclude livestock from streams and riparian
Reduce and control sediment inputs;
from project
areas by installing fencing around the entire
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs;
streams and
project area and/or removing livestock from
Contribute to protection of or
adjacent riparian
the Site.
improvement to a Water Supply
areas.
Waterbody.
Convert active livestock pasture to forested
Reduce and control sediment inputs;
Restore and
riparian areas along all Site streams. Protect
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs;
enhance native
and enhance existing forested riparian
Provide a canopy to shade streams and
floodplain
areas. Treat invasive species during
reduce thermal loadings; Contribute to
vegetation.
monitoring period to permit establishment
protection of or improvement to a Water
of native plantings.
Supply Waterbody.
Permanently
Ensure that development and agricultural
protect the
Establish a conservation easement on the
uses that would damage the Site or reduce
project Site from
Site.
the benefits of the project are prevented.
harmful uses.
2.1 Existing Site Conditions
This proposed riparian buffer mitigation project will place 26.877 acres of agricultural fields and
woodlands along Perry Branch and three unnamed tributaries that drain into the Falls Lake watershed,
part of the Neuse River Basin, under a conservation easement. Out of the 26.877 acres, 24.896 are
proposed for a combination of riparian area restoration or enhancement via livestock exclusion.
In general, this area has maintained its rural, farming character over the last 81 years with only minor
changes in land cover. This consistency in land use within the project watershed indicates that watershed
processes affecting hydrology, sediment supply, and nutrient and pollutant delivery have not varied
widely over this time period. With a lack of developmental pressure, watershed processes and stressors
from outside the project limits are likely to remain consistent throughout the implementation,
monitoring, and closeout of this project. Additionally, landuse within the proposed mitigation areas at the
Site have remained consistent since the project proposal was submitted. Photos of existing riparian areas
onsite are included in Appendix 1a.
The Site contains one perennial stream Perry Branch (Reach 1,2,3, and 4); three intermittent streams UT1
(Reach 1 and 2); UT2 (Reach 1 and 2); and UT3; and two ephemeral channels EC1 and EC3. Perry Branch
is a headwater system that originates onsite. At the upstream extent, this reach is buffered by riparian
wetlands and forest but livestock currently have access to the stream, further impairing existing
conditions via bank trampling and hoof shear. Downstream reaches of Perry Breanch exhibit floodplains
primarily comprised of open pasture with isolated areas of vegeation along the stream bank.
UT1 originates from an ephemeral channel (EC1) and is classified as an intermittent channel that
originates at a knickpoint where the land use transitions from row crops to livestock pasture. There are
no trees along the banks of UT1 Reach 1, the banks are generally bare, and riparian vegetation consists of
pasture grasses. Livestock access has resulted in areas of significant bank erosion as well as significant
instream sedimentation resulting in impaired bed form and habitat complexity.
UT2 originates from a wetland on the project parcel and flows southeast to Perry Branch. This reach
originates in a mature forest, but livestock impacts have significantly altered the understory and
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 2 July 2020

herbaceous communities. The lower extent of UT2 has a deficient buffer that ranges from 0 to 30 feet
wide along the right bank and Livestock impacts are evident throughout.
UT3 originates from an ephemeral channel (EC3) with a limited woody buffer of approximately 5 -10 feet
on each side which is surrounded by active livestock pasture. UT3 becomes an intermittent stream feature
that flows through a forested area prior to the confluence with Perry Branch Reach 3. Livestock impacts
are evident within the forested area, including bank trampling and hoof shear. Mature trees are present,
but the understory and herbaceous vegetation are severely degraded.
Table 2: Buffer Project Attributes
Project Name
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Hydrologic Unit Code
03020201030020
River Basin / Watershed
Neuse River / Upper Falls
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
36.108078,-79,128361
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
To be recorded
Total Credits (BMU)
878,894.828
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Plan Date
April 2020
Initial Planting Date
February 2021
Baseline Report Date
March 2021
MY1 Report Date
November 2021
MY2 Report Date
November 2022
MY3 Report Date
November 2023
MY4 Report Date
November 2024
MY5 Report Date
November 2025
2.2 Alternative Mitigation
In addition to buffer restoration on subject streams, per the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rules (15A
NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o), alternative mitigation is proposed on the Site in the form of buffer restoration on
ephemeral channels and enhancement via livestock exclusion. The proposed project complies with these
rules in the following ways:
Buffer Restoration on Ephemeral Channels 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7):
• The ephemeral channel is directly connected to intermittent or perennial stream channels and
will be protected under the same contiguous easement boundary (Figure 2).
• The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channels compromises less than 14 percent of the
total area of buffer mitigation, Table 7a.
• The mitigation area on the Site's ephemeral channels drains to the ephemeral channel (Figure 3)
or is located completely within its drainage area.
• The proposed area meets all applicable requirements of Paragraph (n) of (15A NCAC 02B .0295),
for restoration or enhancement.
Enhancement via Livestock Exclusion 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
• Wildlands will permanently exclude livestock from the riparian area via the construction of a
perimeter fence 2-ft outside the proposed and illustrated easement.
• An enhancement plan must be provided in accordance by Paragraph (n) of 15A NCAC 02B .0295
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 3 July 2020

Grazing must be the predominant land use since the effective date of the applicable buffer rule.
See Section 2.8 and Appendix 1b for additional details.
2.3 Watershed Characterization
The Site is located in Orange County approximately three miles northwest of Hillsborough, NC (Figure 1).
The Site is located within the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201030020 and North Carolina
Department of Water Resources (DWR) Sub -basin 03-04-01. Site topography, as indicated on the
Hillsborough and Efland, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles, includes mostly gently sloped
alluvial valleys with some steeper slopes along UT1 (Figure 4).
Drainage areas for the streams and riparian areas were determined by delineating watersheds on the
Hillsborough and Efland USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. Figure 3 shows the watershed
boundaries for each area. Existing riparian buffers within the watersheds includes a mix of active pastures,
fields, and woodlands. The watershed drainage areas and current land use are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Reach Name
DWR Stream Designation
Watershed Area
Land Use
(acres)
68% managed herbaceous cover/pasture;
Perry Branch
Perennial
175
22%forested; 5%Shrub; 3%
grassland/herbaceous; 2% residential area;
<1% impervious
>99% managed herbaceous cover/pasture;
UT1
Intermittent
10
<1% forested
66% managed herbaceous cover/pasture;
UT2
Intermittent
23
34% forested
70% managed herbaceous cover/pasture;
UT3
Intermittent
20
30% forested
EC1
Ephemeral
7
>99% managed herbaceous cover/pasture;
<1% forested
EC3
Ephemeral
17
85% managed herbaceous cover/pasture;
15% forested
2.4 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the 1977 Soil Survey of Orange County (Figure 5). Project area soils
are described in Table 4. Most of the stream reaches are on Georgeville silt loam soils, with Enon loam,
Iredell gravelly loam, and Lignum silt within the upper reaches. Enon loam underlies UT2; Iredell gravelly
loam underlies UT3; and Iredell gravelly loam and Lignum silt underlies the headwaters of Perry Branch.
These streams are small headwater systems and due to the scale of the soil mapping exercise, these
specific reaches are not discernable based on the soil mapping results.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 4 July 2020

Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
This series consists of well -drained soil with a slope of 2 to 6 percent located on
Enon loam (EnB)
broad ridges in the uplands. Typically, the surface layer is loam about 5 inches thick.
The subsoil extends to a depth of 25 inches.
This series consists of well -drained soil with a slope of 6 to 12 percent located side
Enon loam (EnQ
slopes adjacent to ridges on the uplands. Typically, the surface layer is loam about
5 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 25 inches.
This series consists of well -drained soil with a slope of 6 to 10 percent located on
Georgeville silt loam (GeQ
narrow side slopes in the uplands. Typically, the surface layer is silt loam about 7
inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 65 inches.
This series consists of well -drained soils on broad ridges on the uplands. The slopes
Herndon silt loam (HrB)
range from 2 to 6 percent. The surface layer is silt loam about 4 inches thick. The
subsoil is about 49 inches thick.
These soils are moderately well drained soils on broad ridges on the uplands with
Iredell gravelly loam (IrB)
slopes of 1 to 4 percent. The surface layer of the series is gravelly loam about 5
inches thick. The subsurface layer is gravelly loam 3 inches thick. The subsoil is about
21 inches thick.
This series consists of moderately well -drained soil on uplands with a slope of 0 to
Lignum silt (Lg)
3 percent. The surface layer is silt loam about 1 inch thick. The subsurface layer is
silt loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is about 30 inches thick.
This series consists of well -drained soil on hillslopes of ridges with slopes of 8 to 15
Tarrus silt loam (TaD)
percent. The surface layer is silt loam about 6 inches thick. The subsurface layer is
silty clay about 14 inches thick. The subsoil is about 24 inches thick.
Source: Orange County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nres.usda.gov
2.5 Geology
The project is located in the Ecoregion 45c - Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province
(NCGS, 1985). The Carolina Slate Belt extends from southern Virginia, across the Carolinas, and into
Georgia. The rocks in this region are primarily volcanic and sedimentary rocks that underwent low-grade
metamorphism giving them a slaty cleavage. Coarse -grained intrusive granites comprise the rest of the
Slate Belt rocks (Rogers, 2006). The geology of this area has important effects on Site hydrology,
hydraulics, geomorphology, and sediment transport. Streams in the Carolina Slate Belt tend to go dry
during late summer and early fall as a result of geologic, topographic, and climatic factors. A study by
Giese and Mason states that the "Carolina slate belt has among the lowest potential for sustaining
baseflow in streams" throughout the year as compared to other regions of North Carolina. Median low
flows in the Carolina Slate Belt, defined by the study as the 7Q10 (7-day consecutive low flow with a 10-
year return frequency, or the lowest stream flow for seven consecutive days that would be expected to
occur once in ten years), can be as low as 0.005 ft3/s/mi2 of drainage area (Giese and Mason, 1993).
2.6 Vegetation
The actively grazed fields on the Site are dominated by pasture grasses such as fescue (Festuca spp.) with
scattered trees along top of bank. Mature canopy species within forested areas along Perry Branch Reach
1 and 2, UT2, and UT3 primarily include shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). Shrub species are sparse and primarily consist of American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). In addition to pasture grasses,
the herbaceous layer in these areas include New York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), false nettle
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 5 July 2020

(eoehmeria cylindrica), pokeweed (Phytolacca americans), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), knotweed (Persicaria spp.), and Japanese
stilt grass (Microstegium spp.). Herbaceous species in wetter areas include common rush (Juncus effusus)
and sedges (Carex spp.).
2.7 Site Constraints and Access
The Site is accessible via two existing farm roads from Frank Perry Road. An overhead transmission line is
located at the downstream extent of Perry Branch (Figure 2). The proposed easement abuts the existing
overhead utility easement. Two internal easement culvert crossings are proposed to support on -going
farming activities. Streams and buffered areas are excluded from credit computations within these
internal crossings (Figure 6). Larry F Warren Field, a small private turf airport is located approximately 2
miles southwest of the project site (Figure 1). There are no other known constraints on or adjacent to the
proposed Site.
2.8 Current Site Resources
On February 25, 2019, DWR conducted on -site determinations to review features and land use within the
project boundary. The resulting DWR stream determination and site viability letters confirming the Site
as suitable for riparian buffer mitigation are enclosed in Appendix 1b. Email correspondence with Katie
Merritt and a letter from David McKee, the farmer that leases land within the proposed project, attesting
to livestock access prior to the effective date of the rule (1997) are enclosed in Appendix 1b.
2.9 Historic Site Resources
Silviculture and agriculture activities are the predominate historic (and current) activities at the Site.
Historic aerial photos, which are included in Appendix 3 of the Perry Hill Stream Mitigation Plan, date back
to 1938 and show the Site in various stages of timber succession and harvesting, row crop production,
and open pasture. In general, this area has maintained its rural, farming character over the last 81 years
with only minor changes in land cover.
3.0 Site Protection Instrument
3.1 Site Protection Instruments Summary Information
The land required for riparian buffer planting, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project
includes portions of the parcel listed in Table 5. An option agreement for the project area has been signed
by the property owners and a Memorandum of Option has been recorded at the Orange County Register
of Deeds. The proposed conservation easement on this property has not yet been recorded.
Table 5: Site Protection Instrument
Landowner
PIN
County
Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book and
Page Number
Acreage
to be Protected
Evelyn J. Perry,
Judy Kadlac, Gene
Kadlac, Mary C.P.
9865081397
Orange
Conservation
DB: 6513
26.877
Bishop and Hubert
Easement
PG: 42
Bishop
All site protection instruments require 60-day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any
action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 6 July 2020

4.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 6, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are expanded
upon in Sections 4.1-4.3. A copy of the signed Categorical Exclusion Form for the project is enclosed with
the Perry Hill Stream Mitigation Plan, Appendix 6.
Table 6: Project Attribute Table
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States
Yes
No
Section 404 Permit
Yes
No
Section 401 Permit
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Perry Hill Stream Mitigation
Plan Appendix 6
(Categorical Exclusion)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Perry Hill Stream Mitigation
Plan Appendix
(Categorical Exclusion)
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
1. PCN to be provided to DMS with the Final Mitigation Plan.
4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database
were searched for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species in Orange County,
NC. The Orange County listed endangered species includes the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), all which
are endangered, and the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), which is listed as proposed threatened.
A pedestrian survey conducted on August 14, 2018, indicated that the Site did not provide suitable habitat
for the dwarf wedgemussel. The pedestrian survey did indicate that the site provides suitable habitat for
the Atlantic pigtoe, smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac but no species were identified on the site.
Therefore, due to the absence of the listed species on the site, the project has been determined by
Wildlands to have "no effect" on the smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac. Perry Hill Mitigation Site
is an active livestock farm leading to poor water quality, due to this and the absence of the Atlantic pigtoe
on the site, the project has been determined to "may affect, but not likely to adversely affect" the Atlantic
pigtoe. The project will have "no effect" on the dwarf wedgemussel due to the absence of suitable habitat.
Per the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Raleigh Field Office standard, Wildlands submitted
the Perry Hill Mitigation Site Self -Certification Letter. The Self -Certification Letter states, the USFWS does
"concur with the "no effect" or "not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed
species and proposed and designated critical habitat; additional coordination with this office is not
needed. USFWS had no additional comment during the thirty -day review period. All documents and
correspondence submitted to the USFWS are included in the Appendix 6 of the Perry Hill Stream
Mitigation Plan.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 7 July 2020

4.2 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect,
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American
architecture, history, archaeology, and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take into
account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in, the
National Register of Historic Places.
There are no existing structures in the project area. The Site is not located near any sites listed on the
National Register with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO was contacted in a letter dated
February 18, 2019 and subsequently responded in a letter dated April 2, 2019 which stated there were no
concerns or comments on the project site. The approved Categorical Exclusion for the project is located
in Appendix 6 of the Perry Hill Stream Mitigation Plan.
4.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance
The project is illustrated on FEMA FIRM panel 3710986500J, effective February 2, 2007. The streams
within the project limits are not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area or floodway. The Site is in a Zone
X or 'other flood area' that is designated for streams with a drainage area of less than 1 square mile. No
modeling or map revisions will be required. Wildlands will coordinate with Orange County to obtain a
floodplain development permit, if necessary.
4.4 Other Environmental Issues
An EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered for the Site through Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. on August 13, 2018. The target property and the adjacent properties are not listed in any
of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental databases searched by EDR. The EDR report identified a Lillie
Warren's parcel, 0.471 miles away, in a listing of leaking aboveground storage tank site locations (LAST)
and Incident Management Database (IMD). On March 23, 1991 roughly 100 gallons of heating oil was
spilled at 2412 NC Highway 86, Hillsborough, NC 27278. The incident was reported and cleaned up on
April 10, 1991, by excavating 30-40 cubic yards of contaminated soil. Based on its location outside of the
Site, it was determined that there is no evidence of any "recognized environmental conditions" in
connection with the target property. The Executive Summary of the EDR report and the specific Site
Summary for Lillie Warren are included in Appendix 6 of the Perry Hill Stream Mitigation Plan.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 8 July 2020

5.0 Determination of Credits
The Site is a riparian restoration and enhancement site that will generate 878,894.828 square feet of riparian buffer credits (Tables 7a and 7b and Figure 6) that can serve Neuse 03020201, including the Falls Lake Watershed (Figure 10). DMS
reserves the right to convert the riparian buffer credits to nutrient offset credits to service the Falls Lake Watershed. The mitigation credit calculation was derived based on Wildlands' conceptual design for maximum ecological uplift. The
buffer zones and subject and non -subject stream designations are shown on Figure 7. The management objectives, mitigation type, and amount of buffer mitigation are presented below.
Table 7a: Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Neuse — Upper Falls Lake (03020201)
Service Area
19.16394A
297.540996
Total
Delivered
Delivered
Min -Max
Initial
Riparian
(Creditable)
o
/ Full
Final Credit
Convertible
Convertible
Nutrient
Nutrient
Credit Type
Location
Subject
Feature Type
Mitigation Activity
Buffer
Feature Name
Total Area (sf)
Credit
Buffer
Area of Buffer
Credit
Ratio (x:1)
to Riparian
to Nutrient
Offset: N
Offset: P
Width (ft)
Ratio (x:1)
Credits
Mitigation (sf)
Buffer?
Offset?
(Ibs) *
(Ibs) *
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
0-100
Perry Branch
406,900
406,900
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
406,900.000
Yes
21,232.586
1,367.543
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
101-200
Perry Branch
26,502
26,502
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
8,745.669
Yes
1,382.910
89.070
Enhancement via
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
0-100
Perry Branch
158,681
158,681
2
100%
2.00000
Yes
79,340.50
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Enhancement via
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
101-200
Perry Branch
1,867
1,867
2
33%
6.06061
Yes
308.055
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
0-100
UT1
94,359
94,359
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
94,359.000
Yes
4,923.779
317.129
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
101-200
UT1
2,204
2,204
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
727.321
Yes
115.008
7.407
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
0-100
UT2
58,504
58,504
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
58,504.000
Yes
3,052.817
196.625
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
101-200
UT2
1,039
1,039
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
342.870
Yes
54.216
3.492
Enhancement via
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
0-100
UT2
125,169
125,169
2
100%
2.00000
Yes
62,584.500
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Enhancement via
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
101-200
UT2
24,819
24,819
2
33%
6.06061
Yes
4,095.132
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Enhancement via
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
0-100
UT3
37,209
37,209
2
100%
2.00000
Yes
18,604.500
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Enhancement via
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
101-200
UT3
26
26
2
33%
6.06061
Yes
4.290
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer
Rural
No
Ephemeral
Restoration
0-100
EC1
17,280
17,280
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
17,280.000
Yes
901.693
58.076
Buffer
Rural
No
Ephemeral
Restoration
101-200
EC1
299
299
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
98.670
Yes
15.602
1.005
Buffer
Rural
No
Ephemeral
Restoration
0-100
EC3
125,712
125,712
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
125,712.000
Yes
6,559.820
422.503
Buffer
Rural
No
Ephemeral
Restoration
101-200
EC3
3,904
3,904
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
1,288.321
Yes
203.716
13.121
Table 7b: Buffer Project Areas and Assets (Summary)
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)**
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Restoration:
736,703
713,957.851
Enhancement:
347,771
164, 936.977
Preservation:
0
0.000
Total Riparian Buffer:
1,084,474
1 878,894.828
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Nutrient
Offset:
Nitrogen:
0
0.000
Phosphorus:
0.000
Note A: Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Credit Ratio (sf/credit); Note B: Phosphorus Nutrient Offset Credit Ratio (sf/credit).
*Per the Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Letter, certain project reaches were deemed viable by DWR for nutrient offset credit. The nutrient offset viable areas are depicted in
Figure 9 and their associated potential nutrient offset credits are listed in Table 7a. These areas have a minimum easement width of 50 feet from the top of bank and these areas will be restored.
While nutrient offset credits are not being requested at this time, these areas may be converted to nutrient offset credits by DMS at a later date.
**15A NCAC 02B 0295 (o)(7) - Ephemeral Reaches are 14% of the Total Buffer Mitigation Area
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 9 July 2020

6.0 Mitigation Work Plan
Wildlands proposes to restore high quality ecological function to Perry Branch and three unnamed
tributaries, and two ephemeral channels. Plan Sheets illustrating the stream mitigation activities at the
Site are enclosed with the Perry Hill Stream Mitigation Plan, Appendix 8. The ecological uplift can be
summarized as transforming agriculturally impacted areas to a protected forested riparian corridor. All
riparian mitigation activities will commence in concurrence with the stream mitigation activities and not
before. Therefore, the mitigation area where riparian restoration and enhancement via livestock exclusion
is being performed may be altered slightly depending on the implementation of the Perry Hill Stream
Mitigation Plan. Planting and fencing will happen in conjunction with the Perry Hill II Nutrient Offset and
Buffer Mitigation Bank. Figure 6 depicts the conceptual approach for the riparian areas. More detailed
descriptions of the proposed riparian buffer mitigation activities follow in Sections 6.1 through 6.3.
6.1 Parcel Preparation
No additional permits are necessary besides 401/404 authorization for the stream mitigation work. The
current land use is agricultural adjacent to the streams proposed for riparian restoration. Undesirable
growth and invasive species within the areas that will not be graded, but are slated for riparian
restoration, will be subject to select chemical or mechanical treatment. The remaining area within the
proposed easement will be graded in accordance with the Interagency Review Team (IRT) approved
stream mitigation plan. The restoration and enhancement areas will be planted via hand labor with dibble
bars or other acceptable forestry practices. Prior to planting, invasive species will be chemically and
mechanically treated within the proposed easement area.
Wildlands collected and analyzed soils samples to develop a site preparation plan. Wildlands noted
compacted soils at the site and will implement ripping or disking prior to planting to reduce soil
compaction in the planted areas. Soil compaction will be disrupted (disked or ripped) to a depth of 18" or
more along haul roads and to a depth of at least 12" for wetland and other planted areas.
Wildlands will apply soil amendments (i.e., an organic plant food and root growth promoter, phosphate,
and soil microbes to promote soil health) to planted areas based on soil testing results. Wildlands will also
implement topsoil harvesting (harvesting the top 8" of soil) and re -use practices. Topsoil harvesting will
be limited to disturbed areas and will not extend into undisturbed riparian areas. Undisturbed areas within
the existing pasture and proposed easement will be chemically treated with glyphosate to reduce
competition on planted stems. Treated areas will be seeded with temporary and permanent seed mixes.
Fescue treatment is introduced in subsequent sections of this report.
6.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
The revegetation plan for the riparian buffer restoration area will include permanent seeding, planting
bare root trees, live stakes, and herbaceous plugs. These revegetation efforts will be coupled with ongoing
maintenance and treatment of invasive species. The specific species composition to be planted was
selected based on the community type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian buffers adjacent
to the parcel, and best professional judgement on species establishment and anticipated site conditions
in the early years following project implementation. Additionally, pollinator species were included within
the permanent seed mixes. Tree species planted across the riparian areas of the Site will include a mixture
of the following species: American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (eetula nigra), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoids), black willow (Salix nigra), silky willow (Salix
sericea), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), southern red
oak (Quercus falcata), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), winged elm (Ulmus
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 10 July 2020

alata), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), southern sugar maple (Acerfloridanum), American elm (Ulmus
americana), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), arrowwood viburnum
(Viburnum dentatum), boxelder (Acer negundo), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), flowering dogwood (Cornus
floridus), sugarberry (Celtis laegivata), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), possumhaw viburnum (Viburnum nudum), blackhaw viburnum (Viburnum prunifolium), and
strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus). Section 4 of the Plan Sheets illustrate the planting activities at
the Site and are enclosed with the Perry Hill Stream Mitigation Plan, Appendix 8.
Trees will be planted at a density to meet the performance standards of 260 trees per acre at the
completion of monitoring. No one tree species will be greater than 50% of the established stems. An
appropriate seed mix will also be applied as necessary to provide temporary ground cover for soil
stabilization and reduction of sediment loss during rain events in disturbed areas. This will be followed by
an appropriate permanent seed mixture. Planting is proposed for January 2021.
Vegetation planting and replanting should be conducted between November 15 and March 15, unless
otherwise noted in the approved Mitigation Plan or remedial action plan.
Vegetation management and herbicide applications may be needed during tree establishment in the
restoration areas to prevent establishment of invasive species that could compete with the planted native
species. Wildlands will implement two approaches to manage fescue at the Site. Both approaches are
designed to mitigate the adverse effects of fescue (i.e., direct competition and allelopathic impacts) on
planted vegetation. The first approach consists of chemically treating select areas immediately adjacent
to planted trees. A second treatment may be required at the beginning of year two based on fescue re-
establishment and tree growth. The second approach entails a chemical application over a broader area
that is designed to eradicate fescue in those areas not graded during construction. Following the chemical
treatment, temporary and permanent vegetation will be established. Wildlands will develop necessary
adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial actions in the event that other invasive species
are preventing the establishment of the targeted vegetative communities.
6.3 Riparian Area Enhancement via Livestock Exclusion Activities
Permanent boundary fencing will exclude livestock from the riparian buffer enhancement areas as
outlined in Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6) (Figure 6 and 8). The enhancement via livestock exclusion area
will be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement. Planting within the enhancement areas
will be limited to severely degraded forested areas that currently exhibit low woody vegetation (stem)
densities. A seed mix will be applied where livestock have created bare soil and sufficient sunlight is
available to support the species in the seed mix. Planting and fencing will happen in conjunction with the
Perry Hill II Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank. Section 5 of the Plan Sheets illustrate the fencing
plans at the Site and are enclosed with the Perry Hill Stream Mitigation Plan, Appendix 8.
7.0 Performance Standards
The performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the guidance
documents outlined in RFP 16-007576 and the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295). Annual
monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the constructed and
planted project. This riparian buffer project has been assigned specific performance criteria components
for vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the five-year post -construction
monitoring period. An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
7.1 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the health, survival, and density of at least 260 stems per acre
at the end of the fifth year of monitoring, with a minimum of four native hardwood tree or shrub species
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 11 July 2020

composition and no one species comprises more than 50 percent of stems. Vigor, species composition,
height, and density will all be assessed. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and
controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period. Wildlands plans to control fescue
during the construction and planting activities. Wildlands will continue to monitor impacts of fescue on
the targeted plant communities at the Site during the monitoring period. In the event fescue is preventing
the establishment of the targeted plant community, Wildlands will prescribe a specific remedial plan of
action.
7.2 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments, which will include reference photos, should support the specific performance
standards for each metric as described above. Visual assessments will be performed within the Site on a
semi-annual basis during the five-year monitoring period. Problem areas with vegetative health will be
noted (e.g. low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment). Areas of concern
will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written description in the annual report. Problem
areas with be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. Should remedial actions be
required, recommendations will be provided in the annual monitoring report.
To ensure compliance with 0295 (0) (6): A visual assessment of the livestock exclusion areas within the
conservation easement will also be performed each year to confirm:
• Fencing is in good condition throughout the Site; no livestock access within the conservation
easement area; no encroachment has occurred; diffuse flow is being maintained in the
conservation easement area; and there has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or
similar activities that would negatively affect the functioning of the riparian buffer.
• Any issues identified during the visual assessments will be photographed and mapped as part of
the annual monitoring report with remedial efforts proposed or documented.
7.3 Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the DMS Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline and Annual Monitoring Report
Template Version 2.0 (May 2017), a baseline monitoring document and as -built record drawings of the
project will be developed for the constructed Site. Complete monitoring reports will be prepared in the
fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS. Annual monitoring reports will be based on the above
referenced DMS Template (May 2017). The monitoring period will extend five years beyond completion
of construction or until performance criteria have been met.
7.4 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
Wildlands will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial actions in the
event that the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria outlined above.
The project -specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an appropriate
threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions implemented will be
designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously and will include a work schedule and updated
monitoring criteria (if applicable).
8.0 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are met
and project goals and objectives are achieved. The monitoring report shall provide project data
chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of DMS
databases for analysis and research purposes and assist in close-out decision making.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 12 July 2020

8.1 Monitoring Components
Project monitoring components are listed in Table 8 and illustrated in Figure 8.
8.2 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring quadrants will be installed across the Site to measure the survival of the planted
trees (Figure 8). The first annual monitoring activities will commence at the end of the first growing
season, at least five months after planting has been completed, and will be reassessed annually no earlier
than the Fall of each year. Species composition, density, height, and survival rates will be evaluated on an
annual basis by plot and for the entire site. The number of monitoring quadrants required and frequency
of monitoring will be based on the DMS monitoring guidance documents. Vegetation monitoring will
follow the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008) or another DMS approved protocol. Planted
stems will be flagged. Reference photographs of the vegetation plots and Site will be taken during the
annual vegetation assessments.
8.3 Visual Assessment and Photo Documentation
Visual assessments will be performed within the Site on a semi-annual basis during the five-year
monitoring period. Problem areas with vegetative health will be noted (e.g. low stem density, vegetation
mortality, invasive species or encroachment). Visual assessments will include documenting the condition
of livestock exclusion fencing and that no livestock are accessing the conservation easement area.
Additionally, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) photographs will be taken within the project area once a
year to visually document vegetation growth for five years following construction.
Table 8: Monitoring Components
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity
Frequency
Vegetation
CVS Level 2
14
Annual
Visual Assessment
Yes
Semi -Annual
Exotic and Nuisance
Vegetation
Yes
Semi -Annual
Project Boundary
Yes
Semi -Annual
Reference Photos
UAV Photographs
Yes
Annual
9.0 Long -Term Management Plan
The Site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct inspection of the Site at least twice per year (semi-annual basis) to ensure
that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is
developing an endowment system within the non -reverting, interest -bearing Conservation Lands
Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North
Carolina General Statue GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for
stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage, to identify boundary markings, as needed. No
livestock, fencing, or internal crossing changes are currently present or planned by the landowner for the
project area. Any future livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility
the owner of the underlying fee to maintain.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 13 July 2020

10.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implement the post -construction monitoring defined
in Section 8. Project maintenance will be performed during the monitoring years to address issues if
necessary. If, during annual monitoring it is determined the Site's ability to achieve Site performance
standards are jeopardized, Wildlands will notify the DMS/NCDWR to develop contingency plans and
remedial actions.
Wildlands will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial actions in the
event that the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria outlined above.
The project -specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an appropriate
threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions implemented will be
designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously and will include a work schedule and updated
monitoring criteria (if applicable).
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 14 July 2020

11.0 References
Giese, G.I and Robert R. Mason Jr. 1993. Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2403.
Rogers, John J.W., 2006. The Carolina Slate Belt. In Steponaitis, V.P., Irwin, J.D., McReynolds, T.E., and
Moore, C.R. (Ed.), Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt (pp. 10 — 15). Retrieved from
http://rla.unc.edu/Publications/pdf/ResRep25/Ch2.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Orange County.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2009. Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), June 2017. Annual Monitoring Report Template.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale
1:500,00, in color.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2018. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Orange County, NC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2018. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Orange County, NC.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/orange.html
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 15 July 2020

Cedar G '
,per, - 1,a�� C) + +�((` �, ,%• 4S
e$� r
s Dins: Traveling West of 1-40W/1-85S
from Raleigh/Durham, follow 1-40W/1-85S
_4 a, mod. o� to exit 161 for US-70 Connector N. Take
a right at the bottom of the ramp and continue
Haf15 Mill Rd onto US-70E (1.0 mile) via US-70 Connector N.
Continue on US-70E (1.9 miles) before taking
a left onto Faucette Mill Rd. Continue (1.9 miles)
and take a sight right onto Frank Perry Road.
' Destination will be on right (0.5 miles).
n r
Rd FoX
rn
tf,pr �lurk�:
F CvZ ,�
a ,
rs ^
gt
¢ Gpi�
eliva' -y
y�
Efland m 7C'
Sow*rn Dr
Hillsborough
Uti Krng 5t 0/
44
85 n q� ton Rcf
Occ�oneechee
hlounuin
857 .'J sly r V
�c 0 Project Location
u ,
Conservation Easement Boundary
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
kv,WILDLANDS 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Perry Hill Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

Jk
;;� 4A`r '� Af �
.1' DWR Ephemeral Point
Wetland O
Wetland L
-+ r
DWR Intermittent Point DWR E/I Point
y. Wetland M
Wetland N/
Will.
J
UVetIan
k
Drainage Conveyance B
Wetla'n,dAWAW
DWR Ephemeral Point ♦ �� ,' ♦ ►�F
DWR E/I Point ♦/
%,,,WILDLANDS 0 175 350 700 Feet
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Wetland B \
/ Wetland A
[•
:4f.
u
1
Project Location
r Conservation Easement Boundary
rY
_ Existing Wetland
Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Ephemeral Channel
Non -Project Stream
f Surveyed Treeline
Topographic Contours (4')
Existing Utility Line Alignment
C, Existing Utility Pole
Figure 2 Site Map
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

X
r ,
i
I s
tii( F ¢
��u # • . ,fib ' - ' � ����
em
OEM
s ■■■■
NONE
AMEN
IN 0
MEN
■■■
R`.
Add
of .
h>
I
II ei � a
4f �
Project Location
Conservation Easement Boundary
'•� UT1 Watershed
UT2 Watershed
., UT3 Watershed
�a Ephemeral Channel Watershed
Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Ephemeral Channel
Non -Project Stream
4' Topographic Contours
0 300 600 1,200 Feet
Oft,WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Figure 3 Watershed Map
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

11
i
f
4
Efland & Hillsborough, USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles
■ a i sd
ss
o
Project Location
Conservation Easement Boundary
Figure 4 USGS Topographic Map
*V,WILDLANDS 0 300 600 1,200 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

?? •• •• ••} avY:ay..... }M1 Ir•••1 rr_i•wv-r} 1
' N.'
i r s' rsg;..a•
' /�•d�• v{.• p •5.rr as r. •x.v a
` a+y e • . -
�. � l�• { �Jaf r •• �•ti004} � : .�•v a}4 :5.: {. ••�i r{${ .}}$�'
�� ti •}ice :: vr• i2+tiM1 :: '
ON
.a
f
• {• frr� Y :•{{
77CC5C rl..
h{„v,'::::" 1. ,'d:• '^�
4}i . :: r:jv±cc.o-r{ {.:i�••:::,�da: lro7s,':. :::::.c ::s{.::
Project Location
1977 Soil Survey of Orange County _ Conservation Easement Boundary
Figure 5 NRCS 1977 Soils Map
ft,,,WILDLANDS 0 300 600 1,200 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

Figure 6 Credit Calculations Map
im-.,WILDLANDS 0 175 350 700 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
E N G IN EER ING I I I I I Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

I
E9i a: b sky
•N / rely(- ••` z..
00000-
41.
JI
I � i
aye!'
AS
y � �
000
Project Location
I i
Conservation Easement Boundary
I 200 Foot from TOB
I J 100 Foot from TOB
6L.• f SO Foot from TOB
•�� � 1 � ,�. � � ' 30 Foot from TOB
Buffer Rule Subject Stream
r
. #P•�, - - - Buffer Rule Non -Subject Stream
�- Non -Project Stream
• •• .•
Figure 7 Riparian Buffer Zones Map
P.WWILDLANDS 0 175 350 700 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I�I�I Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

❑ `
0
�� II ► ❑ 1 IJ
OKI
`. ❑
'APO
J•�... .._s� 1 I /
El
Y n«
El
♦ ♦,� �/" . ' Project Location
` ,�`� j♦ A j�� /� £ . __� Conservation Easement Boundary
♦ ❑
Internal Easement Crossing
♦ {ter Proposed Buffer Vegetation Plots
11 Buffer Restoration
1 j
❑¢ A / r Buffer Enhancement via Livestock Exclusion
// ♦� No Buffer Credit
00
♦ ❑' �� Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Headwater Conveyance
Ephemeral Channel
Non -Project Stream
M = M Proposed Fencing
WW I L D L A N D 5 0 175 350 700 Feet
ENGINEERING I I I I I
41
Figure 8 Buffer Monitoring Map
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

i4,
a
I
/ n �
Project Location
-, ' __j Proposed Conservation Easement
Buffer area convertible for Nutrient Offset Credit
/k; r f �g4P Buffer area not convertible for Nutrient Offset Credit
200 Foot Buffer Width
100 Foot Buffer Width
�p 50 Foot Buffer Width
' 1
� Perennial Project Stream
1 Intermittent Project Stream
Headwater Conveyance
Ephemeral Channel
. Non -Project Stream
Figure 9 Nutrient Offset Zones Map
%,,,WILDLANDS 0 175 350 700 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

sat, 1 1
j
Yanceyville diI �: .,� S
ri,Kha•• ''-I I
j Perry Hill Mitigation Site
sapo�i ��ha
y� en lab j r / Louisburg
j Falls Lake Watershed "
=1
j� 1 Flake Fc•rest •` rl I. ill
• '—
Carr I(iwghldala - ��•
i H%661 �'3020201 ,••
/ Ap
A.
...i
0 1 Garnet �/•
aye: l�
�� prings - 8e=sor $ / Claytofl
Angra Sm IN Iiield n.;
%• x zaln
_anf ord �• 3arp Park o C.•e.: ;
Buie- � 1 !�
Llllir oil Creak Coals
��` /• �b`JR Frwm
.. rr
'L• �•�„ Jtr' A,� L�t�e '�� �
..�nl o-au �r •1y .�•. , •�. � � ilei
'�Cnng Lake
Fort Bragg J
fill.:
yService Area Nutrient Offset Credits
\ 2z3rr C° Service Area Riparian Buffer Credits
•4 Hope kLlls
�••--•j County Boundaries
Figure 10 Service Area Map
W I L, D L, A N D S 0 6 12 24 Miles Perry Hill Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
ktwr Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

APPENDIX 1a

Photo Log Site Map
W I L D L A N D 5 0 175 350 700 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
WV E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

Photo Point 1— Northwest View (0310312020) 1 Photo Point 2 — Northeast View (0310312020) 1
Photo Point 3 — Northeast View (0310312020) 1 Photo Point 4 — Northeast View (0310312020) 1
Photo Point 5 — Southwest View (0310312020) 1 Photo Point 6 — Northeast View (0310312020) 1
Photo Point 7 — Northeast View (0310312020) I Photo Point 8 — Northeast View (0310312020)
W Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 1 July 2020

Photo Point 9 — South View (0310312020) 1 Photo Point 10 — Southwest View (0310312020) 1
Photo Point 12 — South View (0310312020)
Photo Point 13 — Southeast View (0310312020) 1 Photo Point 14 — Downward View (0310312020) 1
Photo Point 15 — Northwest View (0310312020) I Photo Point 16 — Northwest View (0310312020)
WPerry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 2 July 2020

Photo Point 17 Southeast View (0310312020)
Photo Point 18 — Southeast View (0310312020)
Photo Point 19 — Southeast View (0310312020)
Photo Point 20 — South View (0310312020)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100093 Page 3 July 2020

APPENDIX 1b

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
April 15, 2019
John Hutton DWR Project # 2019-0157v2
Wildlands Engineering, Inc Orange County
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject: On -Site Stream Evaluation and Determination for Applicability to the
Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0233) and Water Quality
Standards
Project Name: Perry Hill Site
Address/Location: 2623 Frank Perry Rd
ParcellD's: N/A
Streams Evaluated: UTs to Eno River
Field Date: February 26, 2019
DWR Staff: Katie Merritt
Determination Type:
I Buffer: I Stream: I
® Neuse (15A NCAC 02B .0233) ® Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 02B .0259) Determination (where local buffer
❑ Catawba (15A NCAC 02B .0243) ordinances apply)
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 02B .0267) (governmental
and/or interjurisdictional projects)
❑ Randleman (15A NCAC 02B .0250)
❑ Goose Creek (15A NCAC 02B .0605-.0608)
See the following table and written explanation regarding the stream determinations.
Nor+n� cnr+ouran ��
o.pum.Mar�wnro.rer� /''�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1617
919.70Z9000

Wildlands Engineering, Inc ,
Neuse River Riparian Buffer/Stream Determination
DWR Project #2019-0157v2
Page 2 of 3
Feature V
Feature
Not
Subject
Start@
Stop @
Soil
USGS
Type'
Subject
Survey
Topo
Perry Branch
P
X
Easement
Throughout
X
X
Boundary
EC1
E
X
Culvert
UT1
X
UT1
I
X
DWR Flag
Perry Branch
X
UT2
I
X
DWR Flag
Perry Branch
(headcut
below
wetland)
EC3
E
X
DWR flag
UT3
UT3
I
X
Woodline @
Perry Branch
crossing
A
Off-line pond
I X
I
See map
B
Drainage
N/A
N/A
See map
conveyance
1 See maps provided showing labeled features
2 Ephemeral (E), Intermittent (I), Perennial (P), Ditch (D)
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) received a Request from Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
(Wildlands) for a Stream Buffer Applicability Determination for a potential mitigation site at the
location described above. A Landowner Authorization Form was provided by Wildlands for the
subject site. On February 26, 2019, DWR staff, along with staff from Wildlands and Division of
Mitigation Services conducted a site visit.
DWR determined that two (2) features on the site, Perry Branch and one Unnamed Tributary to
Perry Branch (UT1) are both streams and are subject to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules
and are both located on the most recently published NRCS Soil Survey of Guilford County, North
Carolina. There are two (2) other Unnamed Tributaries to Perry Branch, UT2 and UT3, that were
determined to be at least intermittent but not subject to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules.
There may be other streams or features located on the properties and on the included maps
that may be subject to the buffer rules or may be considered jurisdictional according to the
US Army Corps of Engineers and subject to the Clean Water Act.
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners
or affected parties that dispute a determination made bythe DWR may request a determination
by the Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of
this letter to the Director in writing.
If sending via US Postal Service: If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.):

c/o Karen Higgins
DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Neuse River Riparian Buffer/Stream Determination
DWR Project #2019-0157v2
Page 3 of 3
clo Karen Higgins
DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding as detailed above, unless an appeal is requested within
sixty (60) days.
This determination only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve
any activity within the buffers. The project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the
proposed activity. Any inquiries regarding applicability to the Clean Water Act should be
directed to the US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office at (919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Katie Merritt at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Attachments: Site Map, Topo, Orange County Soil Survey
cc: 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file copy
RRO via email- Stephanie Goss
Evelyn Perry, Judy Kadlac, Mary 'Bishop - PO Box 178, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Filename: 2019-0157v2 PerryHillStreamCall(Orange)

S�
�� '�. w� • xv � /s v Etc py ++Fj�,
Project Location " O ls, 't �rF�ty r
- - Proposed Conservation Easement
1�4#0
011
VX
41
c
1C �`yl��� ry�,��..�,{f�n ♦ �. d� g r y.'44'� ..,�,. ,57."/yj�:
F-
tO
t
K �� � �•� I ait � �.1FC11i71J '� � ' n'
Z r.
��� � � -pia V�•6�,I._ � �f�."
W.
' ♦ ,,
GZjLila
;r
4
qls.**�Wl LANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Reach Name
% Incision
% Erosion
Stream Restoration
Perry Branch Reach 2
67%
81%
UT1
68%
89%
Subtotal
67%
83%
Stream Enhancement I
Perry Branch Reach 1
21%
67%
UT2 Reach 2
54%
75%
Subtotal
38%
72%
Ifteam Enhancement II
Perry Branch Reach 3
45%
58%
UT2 Reach 1
76%
76%
UT3
63%
1005/0
Subtotal
55 /
70%
Site Total
55%
76%
Site Map
0 250 500 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
l I I I I Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

4
r
•
V
"ram
z `<
Efland USGS 7.5 Minute Topographical Quadrangle
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet
ENGINEERING
G t
I
i�
0
f..
QProject Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
USGS Site Topographic Map
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

,�gW I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet
,ENGINEERING I I I I
c p\
NRCS 1977 Soils Map
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretory
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
April 16, 2019
John Hutton DWR# 2019-0157
Wildlands Engineering, Inc Orange County
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
(via electronic mail: jhutton(a-)wildlandseng.com)
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Perry Hill Site
Located near 2623 Frank Perry Rd, Hillsborough
Neuse 03020201
Dear Mr. Hutton,
On February 25, 2019, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a
request from Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) for an onsite mitigation determination
near the above -referenced site (Site). The Site is located within the Upper Falls Lake
Watershed of the Neuse River Basin in the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code. The Site is being
proposed as part of a full -delivery nutrient offset, stream and riparian buffer mitigation
project for the Division of Mitigation Services (RFP #16-007576). Members of the
Interagency Review Team (IRT) and Division of Mitigation Services were also present
onsite. At your request, on February 26, 2019, Ms. Merritt performed an onsite assessment of
riparian land uses adjacent to streams onsite, which are shown on the attached map labeled
"Concept Map".
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
and landward 200' from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(effective November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Feature
Classification
t ubject
to
Riparian Land uses
adjacent to Feature
Buffer
Credit
2Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
onsite
Offset
Win riparian areas
Buffer
0-200'
Viable
Viable at
Rule
2,273.02
Ibs-N ner
acre
EC1
Ephemeral
No
Non -forested pasture grazed
'Yes
Yes
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
(see map)
by cattle
.0295 (o)(7)
Must submit supporting
documentation of additional
requirements under.0295 (o)(7) to be
viable for buffer mitigation.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

Perry Hill Site
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
April 16, 2019
Feature
Classification
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
2Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
onsite
Offset
w/in riparian areas
to
adjacent to Feature
Credit
Buffer
0-200'
Viable
Viable at
2,273.02
Rule
Ibs-N per
acre
UTl
Stream
Yes
Non -forested pasture grazed
Yes
Yes
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
by cattle
.0295 (n)
Perry
Stream
Yes
Combination of forested &
3,4Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested areas - Restoration
Branch
non -forested pasture grazed
forested
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
by cattle
areas only)
Forested areas - Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6) if
fence is installed or Preservation
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5) if
fence isn't installed.
UT2
Intermittent
No
Combination of forested &
3,4Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested areas - Restoration
@ DWR flag
non -forested pasture grazed
forested
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
by cattle
areas only)
Forested areas - Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6) if
fence is installed or Preservation
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4) if
fence isn't installed.
EC3
Ephemeral
No
Non -forested pasture grazed
'Yes
Yes
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
(see map)
by cattle
.0295 (o)(7)
Must submit supporting
documentation of additional
requirements under.0295 (0)(7) to be
viable for buffer mitigation.
UT3
Intermittent
No
forested pasture grazed by
3,4Yes
No
Forested areas - Enhancement Site
@ crossing &
cattle
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6) if
woodline
fence is installed or Preservation
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4) if
fence isn't installed.
A
Off-line pond
No
Non -forested pasture
No
No
N/A
Page 2 of 4

Perry Hill Site
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
April 16, 2019
Feature
Classification
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
2Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
onsite
adjacent to Feature
w1in riparian areas
to
Credit
Offset
0-200'
Buffer
Viable
Viable at
Rule
2,273.02
lbs-N per
acre
B
Drainage
No
Non -forested pasture
No
Yes
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
conveyance
.0295 (n)
'Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated April 15, 2019 using the 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS .
z NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment
3The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
4The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6). Cattle
exclusion fencing is required to be installed around the mitigation area to get buffer credit under this part of the rule.
5The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channels shall comprise no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7).
The maps attached to this letter were prepared by Wildlands and were initialed by Ms. Merritt on
April 15, 2019 and April 16, 2019. This letter should be provided in all stream and wetland,
buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation plans for this Site.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters for
buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient
load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for approval prior to any
mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Page 3 of 4

Perry Hill Site
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
April 16, 2019
This viability assessment will expire on April 16, 2021 or upon the submittal of an As -Built Report
to the DWR, whichever comes first. This letter should be provided in all stream, wetland or buffer
mitigation plans for this Site.
Please contact Katie Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
KAH/kn
Attachments: Concept Map, Site map
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
Sincerely, 61��
11"
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 4 of 4

Imo`. s F
I
if
20
'- ♦
V•�.. % % t
F` a •
z %OWL
•
j,� . � • 'fit
(�
♦ as ♦ O R ,
001 Reach 2
AP
• ® Project Location
- - Proposed Conservation Easement
100' Proposed Internal Crossing
Proposed Buffer Restoration
Proposed Buffer Enhancement (via Cattle Exclusion)
4w O ►
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
`0
+"r Utility Pole
0 250 500 Feet
t I I I I
�O
01
Riparian Buffer Concept Map
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

J�
QProject Location
-
Proposed Conservation Easement
Off. E � +�� �'�_�..� • • ��,' a�a
\411 + '
s •
W °
{j + ? +� Reach Name % Incision % Erosion
a ;�+♦� - ,' Stream Restoration
Perry Branch Reach 2 61% 81%
i Ai UT1 680/6 89%
f ' . *.4e Subtotal 67% 83%
a I' . ,+ Stream Enhancement l
Perry Branch Reach 1 21% 67%
UT2 Reach 2 -5491.1 75%
Subtotal 38% 72%
AlfWeam Enhancement 11
s_
} Perry Branch Reach 3 45% 58%
UT2 Reach 1 76% 76% -`
UT3 63% 1000/0
Subtotal 55% 70%
Site Total
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Site Map
E N G I N E E R I N G I i I Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Orange County, NC

Attestation from David McKee, the farmer who leases land that is part of Perry Hill Mitigation Project
I attest that cattle had access to the land shown on Katie Merritt's email in July, 1997.
Sincerely,
David McKee f�
Signed 3/15/19

Daniel Johnson
From: Chris Roessler
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 1:35 PM
To: Daniel Johnson
Cc: Andrea Eckardt
Subject: FW: [External] FW: Cattle Exclusion assessment -Perry Hill -need more info
Attachments: attestation_DavidMcKee_15March2019.pdf
How bout this?
Chris Roessler I Senior Scientist/ProjectManager
0: 919.851.9986, x 111 M: 919.624.0905
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 1:50 PM
To: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Hutton <jhutton@wild landseng.com>
Subject: FW: [External] FW: Cattle Exclusion assessment -Perry Hill -need more info
Hey Chris,
Based on Mr. Mckee's letter and other site factors I observed during my site visit on February 26, 2019, 1 will support
that cattle had access to the areas circled in the picture below. Therefore, based on this assessment, would you like to
provide a revised map for me to use for the Site Viability letter? Thus, showing the Preservation area (green) as cattle
exclusion for Enhancement? If so, let me know.
1

41
i
Perry era
pig
Lug 911115eacnrgi
40,
r
# 4F
r �
From: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 7:32 AM
To: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Hutton <0hutton@wild landseng.com>
Subject: [External] FW: Cattle Exclusion assessment -Perry Hill -need more info
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hi Katie-> I showed David McKee your email and the map below and he was sure there were cows in those areas in July
1997.
He signed the attached to attest to this. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Chris
Chris Roessler I Senior Scientist/ProjectManager
0: 919.851.9986, x 111 M: 919.624.0905
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
4

From: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 2:37 PM
To: John Hutton <jhutton@wild landseng.com>; Daniel Taylor <[e-mail]>
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cattle Exclusion assessment -Perry Hill -need more info
Hey John,
Below is a picture showing two forested areas hatched in black. Based on my onsite observations of these areas and my
review of the historical photos I was able to dig up, I am not certain that these areas qualify under 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(o)(6) to receive Enhancement buffer credit at a 2:1 ratio. These areas did have cattle access during the time of our site
visit. However, when looking at both historical aerials of these areas prior to the buffer protection rule as well as the
presence of relic pasture fencing in and around the areas, it would appear the cattle were excluded from having access
at some point and possibly prior to the effective date of the rule (1997). It isn't until approximately 2008 that cows are
observed in the fields adjacent to EC3 and Reach 1 of Perry Branch shown highlighted in Yellow below. Unless Wildlands
has anything more they can provide me to assist in this assessment to confirm w/o a doubt there were cows present in
the forested areas prior to the effective buffer rule date, I'm going to issue the viability letter based on my Best
Professional Judgement and show these areas as viable for Preservation buffer credit under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
which would yield a ratio of 5:1. I'd like to issue this letter by the 15' if at all possible, so please send me anything you
have prior to then. If Wildlands agrees with the assessment of Preservation, then no information is required and the
letter will be issued.
IJT� Mach �
Thank you,
Katie
3

**please note my phone number has changed**
Katie Merritt
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: 919-707-3637
Work Cell: 919-500-0683
Website: http://porta1.ncdenr.org/web/wq/401bufferpermitting
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620
1617 Mail Service Center. Raleiah. NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.