20190159 Ver 1_Buffer Plan_DWRedits_20201120

ID#* 20190159 Version* I
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 08/24/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 8/21/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?" r Yes r: No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
P Stream r— Wetlands V Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#:* 20190159 Version:*1
Existing IDS Eiisting Version
Project Type: C ❑MS {' Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project
County: Johnston
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Strawberry) fll_100094_FDMP_2020.pdf E6.47MB
Pease Lload only one FCF of the c"ete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature: ram- �7
0711 te-Ilem�%! AC/fIf

Final Draft Mitigation Plan
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project
DMS Project #: 100094 1 Contract #: 7745 1 RFP: 16-007576
USAGE Action ID: SAW-2020-00332 I DWR #20190159
Neuse River Basin I HUC 030202011 Johnston County, North Carolina
July 2020
Prepared For:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-I652
Prepared By:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange — Neuse I, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1052
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation
and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14),
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.

100=0WOM111 OW71Mu'
fires
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.209.1062 tel.
919.829.9913 fax
TO: Jeremiah Dow — Project Manager
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
FROM: Jamey McEachran — Project Manager
Resource Environmental Services, LLC
DATE: July 281h, 2020
RE: Response to Strawberry Hill Draft Mitigation Plan Comments DMS Project ID No.
100094, Contract #7745
Strc ono ,Ylitigation Plan:
1. Title Page
a. Add DWR # 20190159,
The DWR # has been added to the title page
2. Table 3
a. Please delete the "65m" in the Level IV Ecoregion designation.
In Table 3, "65m" has been deleted.
3. Section 4.1
a. DMS recommends removing text describing industry standards prior to IRT review.
Statements defining industry standards have been removed from Section 4.1,
b. Geomorphology section - Will all, or most, sediment from upstream sources be addressed by
restoration? How will sediment source from the ditch draining to JH1A be addressed? This refers
to Section 6.3 as well. Is the intent to promote bar storage? Also, a sentence states "The restoration
is also designed to accumulate woody debris by having defined shallow riffle..." Please add a
sentence or reword to explain "defined shallow riffle."
Further explanation of how sediment Fiom upstream sources will be addressed through restoration
is provided in The GeonioipholoD, section in Section 4. 1. Additionally, a short description of how
the sediment from the ditch draining to JH 1-A will be addressed in the design through the addition
of large pools and livestaking was added to Section 6.3.
The word "shallow" was removed from the sentence to just refer to riffles.

4. Table 9
a. For items 4 and 5 in the "Objective" column, please consider changing "Unmeasurable" to
"Unmeasured" or "Not Measured," etc., or remove italicized text.
Italicized text has been removed entirely from the "Objective" column for the Physicochemical
and Biology categories.
5. Section 6.1
a. Reference Watershed Characterization — Recommend changing the first sentence to "The selected
reference stream is UT to Buffalo Creels which is part of the most downstream portion of the
Buffalo Branch Stream Mitigation site..."
The sentence has been revised per the comment.
b. The reference stream has a drainage area of 709 acres, which is significantly larger than the
drainage areas of project reaches. The draft mitigation plan indicates that a scaling factor is used
based on the difference between bankfull widths. Please verify other design parameters are also
scaled down accordingly, and add a brief discussion about the scaling factors used for design.
The Reference Channel Motphoingv section has been revised accordingly.
6. Section 6.2
a. Under the "Typical Design Sections" heading the 2"d sentence states, "The cross sections were
altered slightly to facilitate constructability; however, the cross -sectional area, width to depth
ratio, and side slopes were preserved." Please clarify. Were all cross sections altered? Are they
altered/preserved from the reference dimensions, typicals from the plan sheets, etc.?
The Typical Design Sections write-up has been revised accordingly. The sentence has been revised
to say "All cross-section dimensions were developed From the analog reach but were altered based
an existing site conditions, hydraulic modeling, and observations from other mitigation sites in
the area."
7. Section 6.3 — See comment 3b above.
An additional paragraph was added to Section 6.3 to clarify how sediment from ditches will be
addressed in restoration reaches.
8. Section 6.4
a. Under the "Soil Restoration" heading, reference is made to "... any unstable material identified
in the pond bed will be removed and replaced with material suitable for stream construction." No
pond is shown within the easement boundary, please clarify.
The sentence has been removed, as there are no ponds within the easement boundary.
9. Section 8.5
a. A sentence states that vegetation monitoring will occur "between July I" and leaf drop." This
contradicts the buffer mitigation plan which states that vegetation data will be collected no earlier
than late August.
The section has been updated to be consistent with the Buffer Mitigation Plan vegetation
monitoring date criterion. Therefore, vegetation monitoring at the Project will occur between late
August and leaf drop for both the stream and buffer components. The revised sentenced reads,
"Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between late August and leaf drop."
2

10. Figure 7
a. Please identify and label all ditches around the project, specifically the ditch draining to JH1-A.
All ditches have been symbolized in the figure, including the ditch draining to JH1-A as well as
the yard swale that drains into JH1-B. Likewise, Figures 8 & 9 of the Stream Mitigation Plan and
Figure 2 of the Buffer Mitigation Plan have been revised to incorporate these features.
11. Figure 9
a. Please move the JH3 and JH4 labels so they do not obstruct the vegetation plots.
Figure 9 has been revised accordingly.
b. Because the stream is intermittent throughout its entire project length, DMS suggests adding an
additional flow gage for monitoring intermittent flow.
The flow gauge near the top of reach JH 1-A is intended to indicate presence/duration of flow for
the entire stream length, under the principle that if there is sufficient flow near the top then there
should be similar, if not more, flow downstream of that point as the drainage area increases. RES
believes that the stream determination scores likely underrate the "perenniality" of the stream due
to the extensive manipulation of the stream and the fact that the forms were completed in the
summer dry season. Also, to be conservative, the forms were completed at the top of each reach.
Therefore, RES is confident that the lower end of reach JH 1-B will have no issues with flow,
especially considering the size of the drainage area and the groundwater input from the
surrounding wetlands. With that said, ultimately, the stage recorder near the downstream end can
be utilized to also monitor flow, if deemed necessary in future monitoring years.
12. Appendix B — Plan Sheets
a. Title Sheet — Please add "for NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services" at the top of the page.
Also, add the DWR number to bottom left corner.
These changes have been incorporated.
b. Please include construction sequence sheet between sheet E1 and E2.
Stream construction sequence notes have been added to sheet E I .
c. Final Plan Sheets need to be Sealed.
Final Plans will be sealed for construction after all required permits are in hand.
d. Sheet S3 — It appears that between stations 12+50 and 13+00 there is z 25 if to 301f of creditable
stream length with less than 50' of buffer width.
A 50' buffer could not be obtained along the right bank from station 12+59 to 13+03 (44 LF)
because the stream must be aligned with the NCDQT culvert. This accounts for —I % of the total
restoration length and will not influence crediting per the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
e. Sheet S7 — Near station 39+00 a channel plug is depicted across the constructed channel. Is this
correct?
The channel plug has been revised to no longer intersect the proposed channel.

1. Section 3.2.1
a. Please clarify "...Zone 2 (31-50 feet) of the existing stream channel are not eligible for riparian
buffer credit due to violation of the Neuse Buffer Rules." Tree clearing in Zone 2 is not a violation
of the Neuse Buffer Rules according to 15A NCAC 02B .0233 (6). The Table of Uses states under
the Vegetation Management section that "Periodic mowing and harvesting of plant products in
Zone 2 only" is an Exempt activity. Were Zone 2 areas deemed not eligible for credit due to the
recency of the tree clearing?
During the buffer viability site visit, Katie Merritt of DWR highlighted that because the clear-cut
activity did not only occur in Zone 2 but also occurred in Zone 1, Zone 2 would therefore not be
eligible to generate credit. Perhaps the defining word in "Periodic mowing and harvesting of plant
products in Zone 2 only" is "only". Therefore, Zone 2 areas were deemed not eligible for credit
based on the discussion in the field with the NCDWR and the Site Viability letter based on that
site visit.
b. See last two sentences referring to JH5. Please discuss why the right bank area of JH5 was
excluded from the easement, differing from the proposal submitted to DMS.
This area is not included within the Project easement for two main reasons. The first, because it
is not eligible for riparian buffer credit within Zones I and 2 according to the buffer viability
determination, just like the other ineligible areas throughout the Project, The second reason, the
original proposal proposed stream Enhancement II as well as some buffer preservation credit in
Zone 2, off the right bank, of JH5; however, after the IRT site visit/evaluation, IRT determined
that J1-15 was not suitable for any stream credit other than restoration. But because restoration is
not possible on JH5 within the confines of the Project boundary, the reach was rendered not
suitable for stream credit. Therefore, due to these circumstances, RES is only proposing to
generate riparian buffer credit along the left bank of JH5. With that said, the easement boundary
will still include the JH5 stream channel, plus an additional five feet off of the right stream top of
bank in order to maintain protection of the entire channel.
To clarify, the sentences regarding JH5 within the Section 3.2.1 have been revised to read,
"Notably, JH5 contains a small portion of recently cleared, regenerating forest off the right bank
that is not eligible for riparian buffer credit within Zones 1 and 2 due to circumstances described
above. Therefore, this area will not be part of the Project, although the entire stream channel will
still be included within the conservation easement in order to maintain protection of the entire
stream channel: this conservation easement boundary will be offset approximately five feet from
the right top of bank..."
2. Section 3.23
a. See comment 1 a above. Zone 2 tree harvesting is not a violation of the Neuse Buffer Rules.
Please see la response above.
4

3. Section 3.3
a. Sentence states that "vegetation data will be collected no earlier than August of each year." See
comment 9a for the Stream Mitigation Plan. The stream and buffer mitigation plans need to be
consistent.
Please see response 9a above. The stream and buffer mitigation plan will both state that vegetation
monitoring at the Project will occur between late August and leaf drop.
4. Section 4.1
a. It is stated that "...there will be 13 vegetation plots measuring riparian buffer mitigation success."
Please verify that only the fixed vegetative plots will be used for riparian buffer success criteria,
and not the 4 random plots.
This is correct. Only the 13 fixed vegetation plots will be utilized to monitor buffer mitigation
success. Random plots wilt not be utilized for buffer mitigation success.
1. Please include the zero credit stream features that connect creditable features (i.e. between 7HI-B and
]H 1-A).
The line shapefile has been updated to include these features.
2. "Planting Zones" feature represents 859,425 sq. ft, while total Riparian Suffer area is reported as
740,948 sq. ft. Please provide features for riparian buffer that accurately represent the creditable area
reported in Table 1. AIso, please provide separate features for riparian preservation and restoration.
Planting zones include both creditable and non -creditable buffer area. Creditable buffer shapes have
been added to the polygon shapefile.

Appendix A
Buffer Mitigation Plan

Draft Buffer Mitigation Plan
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project
DMS Project #: 100094 1 Contract #: 7745 1 RFP: 16-007576 1 DWR #: 2019-0159
Neuse River Basin I HUC 030202011 Johnston County, North Carolina
July 2020
Prepared For:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared By:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange —
Neuse 1, LLC (ESX-Neuse)
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1052
Ais mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• The Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule, 15A NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the deliver), ofcompensatory mitigation,

Table of Contents
1 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY.........................................................................................I
1.1 Project Overview........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location.........................................................................................................................3
1.3 Existing Conditions....................................................................................................................4
2 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................7
2.1 Determination of Credits............................................................................................................
7
2.2 Other regulatory considerations.................................................................................................
8
3 RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...........10
3.1 Site Preparation........................................................................................................................10
3.2 Methods....................................................................................................................................10
3.3 Planting Plan............................................................................................................................13
3.4 Easement Boundaries...............................................................................................................14
4 MONITORING PLAN..................................................................................................................15
4.1 Monitoring Protocol and Success Criteria................................................................................15
4.2 Adaptive Management Plan and Project Maintenance.............................................................16
5 STEWARDSHIP............................................................................................................................17
6 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................18
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Service Area
Figure 2 — Existing Conditions
Figure 3 — Vicinity Map
Figure 4 — Conceptual Design Plan for Buffer
Figure 5 — USGS Quadrangle
Figure 6 — Mapped Soils
Figure 7 — Monitoring Plan
APPENDIX
Al — Project Buffer Credits (DWR Template)
A2 — Buffer Viability and Stream Determination
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 1 July 2020

I MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY
Environmental Banc & Exchange — Neuse I, LLC (EBX-Neuse I), a wholly -owned subsidiary of Resource
Environmental Solutions (RES), is pleased to provide this Buffer Mitigation Plan as a component of the
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project (Project), a full -delivery stream and buffer mitigation project for the
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) (DMS #100094). This buffer component of the Project is
designed to provide riparian buffer mitigation credits for unavoidable impacts due to development within
the Neuse River Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Cataloguing Unit 03020201
(Neuse 01) (Figure 1). This Buffer Mitigation Plan is in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer
Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295. The Buffer Mitigation Plan is designed in concurrence with the
Strawberry Hill Stream Mitigation Project (SAW-2020-00332).
1.1 Project Overview
The conservation easement of the Strawberry Hill Project will total approximately 22.12 acres and
includes two unnamed tributaries and three ditches that drain into Polecat Branch and eventually the Neuse
River. Current land use within the Project is primarily crop production and disturbed riparian forest. The
Project area has been used extensively for agricultural and forestry purposes for over 80 years. Currently,
the Project reaches and adjacent areas are in either crop production or forest regeneration. Water quality
stressors currently affecting the Project include pollution from crop production and lack of forested
riparian buffer (Figure 2). Current buffer conditions demonstrate significant degradation with the loss of
stabilizing vegetation because of continued crop production and recent clear cut of adjacent riparian forest.
The goal of the buffer component of the Project is to restore and preserve ecological function to the
existing streams and their associated riparian buffer areas by establishing appropriate plant communities
while minimizing temporal and land disturbing impacts. Buffer and surrounding riparian area
improvements will filter runoff from agricultural fields, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to
Project channels and provide water quality benefit to the overall watershed.
The easement is comprised of two main sections: a northern and a southern. The northern section can be
accessed by either Yelverton Grove Road or Brogden Road, while the southern section can be accessed
by Yelverton Grove Road (Figure 3). The Strawberry Hill Project is composed of two intermittent stream
channels: JH1 (divided into JH1-A and JH1-B) and JH5; and three ditches: JH2, JH3, and JH4 (Figure 2).
Furthermore, the buffers and surrounding riparian areas of all stream reaches and ditches were determined
to be subject to the buffer rules. There will be three easement breaks: two of which account for the
Yelverton Grove Road crossing and one that accounts for an upgraded agricultural crossing. All streams
and ditches have been straightened and are incised; however, reaches JH1-A and JH1-B will be restored
via stream restoration as part of the stream mitigation component of the Project. Stream determinations
were verified by the DWR site visit on February 27th, 2019. Correspondence regarding this
determination is in Appendix A2.
Buffer and riparian area mitigation efforts along the Project streams and ditches will be
accomplished through the planting, establishment, and protection of a hardwood forest community.
The result will be a riparian area that functions to mitigate nutrient and sediment inputs from the
surrounding uplands. The buffer mitigation plan proposed is being submitted for review under the
Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295. In addition to traditional riparian
restoration, the Project will also incorporate the alternative buffer mitigation options: Preservation
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 1 July 2020

of Buffers on Subject Streams, as outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o) (5), and Restoration and
Enhancement of Ditches, as outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o) (8). DWR staff performed an
onsite viability assessment for buffer mitigation on February 27th, 2019. Correspondence regarding
this assessment is provided in Appendix A2 and dated April 30th, 2019. The Project will provide
significant functional uplift to the watershed and will assist DMS with achieving its mitigation goals in
the Neuse 01 watershed. The Project presents the opportunity to provide up to 656,593.451 ftz (15.07
acres) of riparian buffer mitigation units (BMU). These will be derived from restoration and preservation
of the riparian buffer and surrounding riparian areas. Project attributes are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Project Attributes
Project Name
Strawberry Hill
Hydrologic Unit Code
03020201140010 (14 digit)
River Basin
Neuse River
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35.469579,-78.323896
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
5199, 272 Johnston (Hill)
5111, 571 Johnston (Hill)
3754, 814 Johnston (Carpenter)
3960, 792 Johnston (Davis)
4060, 391 Johnston (Haas)
Total Credits (BMU)
656,593.451
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Plan Date
June 2020
Initial Planting Date
December 2021
Baseline Report Date
January 2022
MY1 Report Date
December 2022
MY2 Report Date
December 2023
MY3 Report Date
December 2024
MY4 Report Date
December 2025
MY5 Report Date
December 2026
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 2 July 2020

The riparian buffer mitigation credits will be produced by establishing a native forested and herbaceous
riparian plant community and protecting buffers in perpetuity with a conservation easement. For stream
channels, buffers will have a minimum width of 50 feet and a maximum of 200 feet from the edge of the
channels. These will be derived from 496,540 ft2 (11.40 acres) from the top of bank to 100 feet of
Restoration; 16,097 ft2 (0.37 acres) of 101 to 200 feet of Restoration; 80,893 ft2 (1.86 acres) from the top
of bank to 100 feet of Preservation; and 792 ft2 (0.02 acres) from 101 to 200 feet of Preservation. For ditch
channels, buffers will have a minimum width of 30 feet and maximum of 50 feet from the edge of the
channel. These will be derived from 146,626 ft2 (3.37 acres) from the top of bank to 50 feet of Restoration.
The new plant community will be established in conjunction with the treatment of any existing exotic or
undesirable plant species. Figure 4 shows the Conceptual Design Plan for Buffer and Credit Determination
Map and Section 2.1 provides details of the mitigation determination on the Strawberry Hill Project.
1.1.1 Parcel Ownership
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes portions of
the parcels listed in Table 2. EBX-Neuse I will obtain conservation easements from the current landowners.
The easement deeds and survey plats will be submitted to DMS and the State Property Office (SPO) for
approval and will be held by the State of North Carolina. The easement deeds followed the DMS Full
Delivery Conservation Easement Template dated May 5, 2017 and is included in Appendix D. The
recorded easement allows EBX-Neuse I to proceed with the Project development and protect the mitigation
assets in perpetuity. A finalized copy of the land protection instrument(s) is included in Appendix D.
Table 2. Parcel and Landowner Information
Landowners
Pin or Tax Parcel ID
Agreement Type
County
260200-26-4743
260200-45-0227260200-36-4485
Jan Penny Hill
Easement
Johnston
260200-35-1474
William Christian Carpenter
260200-36-4710
Easement
Johnston
Melrose Haas
260200-46-0253
Easement
Johnston
Bridgette Edwards Davis
260200-46-1831
Easement
Johnston
1.2 Project Location
The Strawberry Hill Project is within the Neuse River Basin within the 8-digit HUC 03020201, 14-digit
HUC 03020201140010 and DWR Sub -basin Number 03-04-02.
The Strawberry Hill Project is located in Johnston County in Smithfield, NC at the crossroads of Yelverton
Grove Road and Brogden Road (Figure 1). To access the Project from Raleigh, take I-40 East to US-70
East. Then take US-70 BUS West until taking a right onto South 3rd Street in downtown Smithfield. Then
take a left onto Brogden Road. Follow Brogden Road for 2.9 miles and the downstream extent of reach
JH1-B will be on your left. The coordinates are 35.469579 °N and-78.323896'W.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 3 July 2020

1.3 Existing Conditions
1.3.1 Surface Water Classification
The Project's tributaries drain directly to Polecat Branch, which has been assigned class C and Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW). Class C waters are protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing,
wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological
integrity, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental
manner. NSW designation is intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being
subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDWQ 2011).
1.3.2 Physiography and Soils
The Project is located within the Rolling Coastal Plain Level IV ecoregion within the Southeastern Plains
Level III ecoregion and is characterized by greater relief, elevation, and stream gradients compared to the
Mid -Atlantic Coastal Plain to the east with better drained soils and a slightly cooler and shorter growing
season. However, it is a productive agricultural region with typical crops of corn, soybeans, tobacco,
cotton, sweet potatoes, peanuts, and wheat. (Griffith et al. 2002). Elevations range from 133 to 141 feet
above mean sea level (NAD 83) based upon topographic survey (Figure 5).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) depicts four soil map units across the Project
(Figure 6). The Project area is dominated by Rains sandy loam, with successively smaller proportions of
Goldsboro sandy loam, Lynchburg sandy loam, and Cowarts loamy sand. Rains sandy loam, Goldsboro
sandy loam, and Lynchburg sandy loam are zero to two percent slopes and not flooded, while Cowarts
loamy sand is two to six percent and not flooded. The soil characteristics of these map units are
summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Project Mapped Soil Series
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage Class
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Soil Group
Setting
Cowarts loamy sand, 2-
Coastal plains, low
CoB
6% slopes, not flooded
o
0 /o
Well Drained
C
ridges on marine
terraces
Goldsboro sandy loam,
Moderately
Flats on marine
GoA
0-2% slopes, not flooded
2 o �0
Well Drained
B
terraces,, coastal
L Lynchburg sandy loam, 8% Somewhat B/D Marine terraces,
y 0-2% slopes, not flooded Poorly Drained coastal plains
Ra Rains sandy loam, 0-2% 90% Poorly Drained A/D Marine terraces on
slopes. not flooded coastal plains
1.3.3 Wetlands
A detailed wetland delineation was completed February 5th, 2020. Wetland boundaries were delineated
using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized and classified using the
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (NRCS, 2010). Within the boundaries of
the Project, four jurisdictional wetlands are present (Figure 2). Wetlands are labeled as WA (Wetland A)
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 4 July 2020

through WD (Wetland D). A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the
USACE on February 14th, 2020 and a confirmed PJD was received, signed May 4th, 2020 (Appendix J).
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict any
additional wetland areas within the Project (Figure 2).
1.3.4 Landscape Communities
A. Existing Vegetation Communities
Current land use around the Project is primarily composed of row crops, forest, and early successional
forest. Fields rotating soybean and corn directly abut most of the banks of Project streams and ditches.
Part of the uppermost portion of the main Project reach (JH1-A) contains a forest along the left bank that
resembles a disturbed Mesic Mixed Oak -Hickory Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) that consists of red maple
(Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), water oak (Quercus nigra),
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), mockernut hickory, (Carya tomentosa), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), roundleaf greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), evening trumpetflower
(Gelsemium sempervirens), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and Nepalese browntop (Microstegium
vimineum). The other distinct community type within the Project is regenerating forest that resembles a
disturbed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The area along reach JH1-B was clear-cut approximately
six to seven years ago and contains a mosaic of scrub -shrub and emergent wetland areas with upland
pockets and berms. Species in these areas include loblolly pine, water oak, red maple, sweetgum,
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetbay, redbay (Persea borbonia), common sweetleaf
(Symplocos tinctoria), swamp titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), black
elderberry (Sambucus nigra), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), muscadine, winged sumac (Rhus
copallinum), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), giant cane, common rush (Juncus effuses), seedbox
(Ludwigia alterniflora), common reed (Phragmities australis), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), dogfennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Also, stream and ditch channels contain locally
dense areas of murdannia (Murdannia sp.) and narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia).
Notable exotic invasive species include Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, Nepalese browntop, and
narrowleaf cattail.
B. Riparian Vegetation
In general, all of the reaches within the Strawberry Hill Project do not function to their full potential.
Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation with a loss of stabilizing vegetation as a
result of impacts from ongoing crop production and forestry. Specifically, the buffer and riparian area off
the right bank of reach JH1-B was clear-cut sometime around 2014 and is currently in an early successional
state of regeneration, although much of the area has failed to regenerate trees. Also, notably, the clear-cut
violated the Neuse Buffer Rules; therefore, any clear-cut area within 50 feet of the existing stream channel
is not eligible for buffer mitigation credit. Throughout the Project there are scattered invasive plant species
that will be treated to the extent practicable.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 5 July 2020

1.3.5 Existing Conditions Photos
Looking Upstream along JH1-A
January 16, 2020
Looking Upstream along JH1-B
January 16, 2020
Looking Upstream at JH2 (Ditch)
January 16, 2020
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project
DMS Project #: 100094
Looking Downstream along JH1-A
January 16, 2020
Looking Downstream along JH1-B
January 16, 2020
Looking Upstream along JH3 (Ditch)
January 16, 2020
Buffer Mitigation Plan
July 2020

Looking Upstream at JH4 (Ditch)
January 16, 2020
OM 101 �ei1 11JC1] `��Il�;f�� I l� �1:7V [11► �
2.1 Determination of Credits
Looking Upstream along JH5
January 16, 2020
This Project has the potential to generate up to 656,593.451 ft2 (15.07 acres) riparian buffer mitigation
credits within a 22.12-acre conservation easement as depicted in Figure 4. These will be derived from
buffer restoration and buffer preservation. The riparian buffer mitigation credits generated will service the
Neuse 01 watershed. The total potential mitigation credits that the Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project will
generate are summarized in Table 4 and the detailed Project credit breakdown, utilizing the DWR "Project
Credit Table Template (Updated November 2019)," is provided in Appendix Al.
Table 4. Strawberry Hill Project (DMS #: 100094) Riparian Buffer Mitigation Summary
Total_ Riparian Buffer Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits
Restoration 659.263 648.478.015
Preservation 91.685 8,115.436
Total Riparian Buffer 740,948 656,593.451
Note: Stipulation for untreated flow entering riparian buffer restoration areas according to 15A NCAC
02B.0242(9)(d)(iii) and Buffer Interpretation/Clarification #2008-019 Memorandum dated 08/19/2008 were
accounted for in the riparian buffer credit area and calculations. These areas are depicted in Figure 4.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 7 July 2020

2.2 Other regulatory considerations
2.2.1 Environmental Screening and Documentation
Because DMS mitigation projects are considered to be a category of activities that do not individually or
cumulatively have an impact on the human environment, they do not require preparation of an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. To ensure that a project meets the
"Categorical Exclusion" criteria, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and NCDMS have
developed a categorical exclusion (CE) checklist that is included as part of each mitigation project's
Environmental Screening process. The CE Approval Form for the Strawberry Hill Project is included in
Appendix L and was approved by DMS and FHWA in August 2019.
2.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. According to the United States
Fish and Wildlife IPAC database review tool (USFWS 2018) and the self -certification process conducted
by RES and submitted to the USFWS on June 12th, 2019 the list of threatened and endangered species
includes the Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), the
Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii). Two additional
species on the list submitted to USFWS are proposed for listing, the Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus
lewisi) and the Carolina Madtom (Noturus Furiosus). The Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project does not
contain any suitable habitat for the Red -cockaded woodpecker, the Atlantic Pigtoe, the Tar River
Spinymussel, the Neuse River Waterdog, the Carolina Madtom, nor the Michaux's Sumac. A self -
certification letter sent to USFWS (on August 2nd, 2019) A copy of this letter is enclosed. No response
was provided by USFWS which is typical as the certification letter (provided) is their official response
unless they do not concur with the determination. This consultation was conducted as part of the CE
process and supporting documentation and correspondence can be found in Appendix L
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with state fish and wildlife agencies when
"waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be
impounded, diverted ... or otherwise controlled or modified. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) was consulted during the CE process and the NCWRC did not comment on any
state or federally listed species; however, they did recommend the use of biodegradable and wildlife -
friendly sediment and erosion control devices and to treat invasive species as part of the Project.
Documentation is included in Appendix L.
2.2.3 Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed 14
August 2018) database did not reveal any registered occurrences within the Project area; however, there
is one nationally registered house (JT0994 - the Watson -Sanders House) on Brogden Road just west of
the Project and one "Determined Eligible" house (JT1920 - Stevens Sausage Company Homeplace/Office)
on Stevens Sausage Road just south of the Project. RES consulted with the SHPO during the CE process
and the SHPO had "conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project." Cultural Resources screening met the Categorical Exclusion Criteria for
FHWA and DMS projects and documentation is included in Appendix L.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 8 July 2020

2.2.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/Hydrologic Trespass
The Project is not within a mapped FEMA Regulatory Floodway or 100-year floodplain (Figure 2). While
designing the Strawberry Hill Project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic trespass
of the adjacent agricultural fields. The adjacent land use will not be affected by the proposed design, and
no detrimental impacts are expected beyond the easement limits. The DMS Floodplain Requirements
Checklist can be found in Appendix M.
2.2. S Clean Water Act - Section 4011404
Because this Project also includes a stream mitigation component that involves stream restoration and
culvert work, impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands and protected buffer will be unavoidable
due to the restoration activities proposed. All stream, wetland, and buffer impacts will be accounted for
in the Pre -Construction Notification form. Information about impacts and permitting are discussed
further in Section 3.4 of the Strawberry Hill Mitigation Plan.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 9 July 2020

3 RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Riparian restoration and preservation areas adjacent to streams are shown in Figure 4 and were
approved by the DWR in the letter dated April 30`h, 2019 (Appendix A2).
3.1 Site Preparation
Preparation at the Project will involve spraying crops and exotic invasive species, clearing undesirable
scrub -shrub vegetation, contoured ripping, seeding, and planting. Additionally, culverts, agricultural
building structures, and old, abandoned irrigation pipes will be removed from buffer restoration areas.
Prior to construction a Pre -construction Notification for the Nationwide Permit 27, under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, and a DWR 401 Water Quality Certification, under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act, will be obtained. Following the issuance of the Nationwide Permit, an erosion and sediment control
permit will be obtained. Stabilization and implementation of dispersal techniques will be utilized where
surface flows have become concentrated to minimize the chances of non -diffuse flow. A combination of
silt fencing, erosion control wattles, temporary seeding, and erosion control matting will be used to reduce
erosion and stabilize soil in riparian areas during any land disturbance activities. These erosion control
measures shall be inspected and properly maintained at the end of each working day to ensure measures
are functioning properly until permanent vegetation is established.
Immediately following completion of restoration activities, disturbed areas will be stabilized to prevent
erosion by seeding with a mixture of temporary and permanent seed mix within ten working days upon
completion of final grading. The proposed seed mix was chosen to maximize successful herbaceous
growth in upland and wetland riparian areas, as both are characteristic of the site, while also incorporating
valuable pollinator species (Appendix B, PI). Areas of compacted soils will be ripped and disked prior
to seed mix application and tree planting. Temporary and permanent riparian seeding shall be done in
accordance with the erosion control plan. Soil amendments will be provided as needed based on the results
of soil fertility tests. After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified, and any compaction will
be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is removed during
construction will be stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation. This process should
provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Bare root plantings and live stakes shall be planted
according to detail shown in the planting plan (Appendix B, PI).
All riparian buffer restoration activities will commence in concurrence with the stream mitigation
activities and not before. The riparian restoration areas will be surveyed, and information will be provided
in the As -Built report.
3.2 Methods
Riparian buffer mitigation activities will include restoration and preservation along streams and restoration
along viable ditches. All restoration and preservation areas were determined by the mitigation
determination performed during the viability assessment by DWR (Appendix A2).
3.2.1 Riparian Restoration Activities - Streams
For stream channels, the Project will provide riparian buffer and surrounding area restoration in
accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n). Restoration activities
will include the planting of bare root plantings as described in Section 3.3. These restoration activities will
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 10 July 2020

begin from the tops of the proposed stream banks and extend a minimum of 50 feet from the stream
outward to a maximum of 200 feet perpendicular to the stream channel. Restoration will occur where
cropland is currently present as well as selective areas of early successional, regenerating forest that lack
suitable density and composition. In the early successional, regenerating forested areas, the buffer
restoration areas are determined based on whether there are less than 25 percent of the tree canopy cover
and a lack of dense growth of smaller woody stems (i.e. shrubs or saplings) in accordance with the
Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (b) (12). Furthermore, these selective areas
were determined by the mitigation determination performed during the viability assessment by DWR
(Appendix A2). Also, as determined in the viability assessment, all recently cleared areas within Zone 1
(0-30 feet) and Zone 2 (31-50 feet) of the existing stream channel are not eligible for riparian buffer credit
due to violation of the Neuse Buffer Rules; however, these areas will still be planted and protected within
the conservation easement (Figure 4). Specifically, reaches JH1-A, JH1-B, and JH5 will include riparian
buffer restoration (Figure 4). Notably, JH5 contains a small portion of recently cleared, regenerating forest
off the right bank that is not eligible for riparian buffer credit within Zones 1 and 2 due to circumstances
described above. Therefore, this area will not be part of the Project, although the entire stream channel
will still be included within the conservation easement in order to maintain protection of the entire stream
channel: this conservation easement boundary will be offset approximately five feet from the right top of
bank (Figure 4).
Since the northern easement section is also proposed for stream restoration as part of the stream mitigation
component of the Project, buffer mitigation activities along reaches JH1-A and JH1-B will coincide with
stream restoration. The stream design approach will include constructing a meandering stream channel
within the natural valley and stabilizing stream banks using a combination of grading, erosion control
matting, live -stake planting, native material revetment techniques (i.e. bioengineering), structure
placement, and sod transplants where possible. These activities will also include backfilling the abandoned
stream channels to the elevation of the floodplain and planting. (Appendix B).
Also, as denoted in Section 2.1, there will be credit deductions for untreated flow entering riparian buffer
restoration areas according to 15A NCAC 0213.0242 (9) (d) (iii) and Buffer Interpretation/Clarification
#2008-019 Memorandum dated 08/19/2008. Specifically, there is untreated flow that enters reach JH1-A,
laterally, at its upstream extent. Therefore, where untreated flow enters the easement boundary, a 120'
angle wedge, drawn 50 feet below the easement boundary, was removed from the associated buffer area
for crediting purpose (Figure 4). However, this area of exemption will still be planted and contained
within the conservation easement.
3.2.2 Riparian Restoration Activities —Ditches
The southern easement section of the Project includes three ditch reaches: JH2, JH3, and JH4 (Figure 4).
These ditches are proposed for riparian buffer restoration in accordance with the alternative mitigation
option of Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o) (8) and the DWR buffer viability
assessment (Appendix A2). As no stream work is proposed on these ditches, the only restoration activities
will include the planting of bare root tree plantings as described in Section 3.3 and the other activities
mentioned in 3.2.4. These restoration activities will begin from the tops of the ditch banks and extend a
minimum of 30 feet from the ditch outward to a maximum of 50 feet perpendicular to the ditch channel.
All these riparian areas are currently cropland except for a small segment along the left bank of JH3, which
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 11 July 2020

contains portions of dilapidated agricultural structures, which will be demolished as part of the Project
(Figure 4).
The ditch reaches meet criteria for riparian buffer restoration according to Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)
(8) in the following ways:
(A) Each ditch drains directly to reach JH5, an intermittent stream.
(B) The stream (JH5) and all ditches, including their confluence, will be protected by a contiguous,
perpetual conservation easement that will prevent any future maintenance or manipulation of the
ditches.
(C) Stormwater runoff and overland flow drain toward the ditches.
(D) Each ditch is between one and three feet in depth (as measured during the DWR buffer viability
site visit and depicted in the issued buffer viability letter (Appendix A2):
• JH2 —
2.50 feet
• JH3 —
2.95 feet
• JH4 —
2.70 feet
(E) The entire length of each ditch has been in place prior to the effective date of the Neuse Buffer
Rule (see Strawberry Hill Mitigation Plan, Figure 6).
Additionally, the watersheds (DA) draining to each ditch were delineated (Figure 5) and determined to be
at least four times (multiplier of 4) larger than the restored area along their corresponding ditches, as
expressed in the following calculations:
• JH2/JH3: (71 ac. DA) / (2.79 ac. restored area)= 25 multiplier
• JH4: (20 ac. DA) / (0.58 ac. restored area)= 34 multiplier
Also, as denoted in Section 2.1, there will be credit deductions for untreated flow entering ditches
according to 15A NCAC 02B.0242(9)(d)(iii) and Buffer Interpretation/Clarification #2008-019
Memorandum dated 08/19/2008. Specifically, there will be untreated ditch flow that enters reaches JH2
and JH4 from upstream, out of the proposed easement, and there is an untreated, lateral ditch that enters
JH2 further downstream. Therefore, where these untreated ditches enter the easement boundary, a 120'
angle wedge, drawn 50 feet below the easement boundary, were removed from the associated buffer area
for crediting purpose (Figure 4). However, these areas of exemption will still be planted and contained
within the conservation easement.
3.2.3 Riparian Preservation Activities
Preservation will take place in limited forested areas within the Project where existing tree growth was
determined adequate, and in accordance with the alternative mitigation option of Consolidated Buffer
Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o) (5) and the DWR buffer viability assessment (Appendix A2).
Specifically, reaches JH1-A and JH1-B contain forested areas that will be preserved (Figure 4). A portion
of riparian area off the left bank of JH1-A is mostly mature forest, while selective portions of riparian area
along JH1-B contain regenerating forest that has sufficient growth of tree saplings and shrubs that are
adequate for preservation. Because these preservation areas are associated with proposed stream restoration
under the stream mitigation component of the Project, some of these areas may need to be cleared during
construction of the new stream corridor. Therefore, these impacted areas will be planted using the same
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 12 July 2020

criteria as restoration areas; however, will still only generate preservation credit. Also, as mentioned above
in Section 3.3.1, all recently cleared areas within Zone 1 (0-30 feet) and Zone 2 (31-50 feet) of the existing
stream channel are not eligible for riparian buffer credit due to violation of the Neuse Buffer Rules;
however, these areas will still be planted and protected within the conservation easement (Figure 4). In
addition, preservation activities will include the permanent protection of the riparian area from cutting,
clearing, filling, grading, and similar activities that would affect the functioning of the buffer through a
conservation easement that will have clearly visible easement markers and signs (see Section 3.5 for further
description of the easement boundaries).
3.2.4 Other Activities
Other activities involved with the buffer mitigation component of the Project include culvert removal,
debris removal, irrigation piping removal, demolition of building structures, and local livestaking (Figure
4). Three culverts currently used as agricultural crossings will be removed in the southern easement
section: two on reach JH2 and one at the transition of JH3 to JH5. Upon removal of these culverts, the
banks will be graded to match the existing channel dimensions and stabilized. Debris removal will occur
throughout the Project where piles of brick and concrete have been used by landowners as makeshift
erosion control structures. The debris will be removed from the conservation easement and any remaining
rills or areas of concentrated flow entering the easement will be stabilized. Along reaches JH2, JH3, and
JH4, there are exposed, abandoned irrigation piping that will be removed from buffer restoration areas and
disposed of off -site as well. Along reach JH3, there are abandoned, dilapidated agricultural building
structures that will be demolished, and the debris materials will be stockpiled away from the conservation
easement for future disposal to be conducted by the landowner. Upon completion of the demolition
activities, the riparian area will be planted as specified above in Section 3.3.2. Livestakes will be planted
on stream and ditch banks where stability is compromised, such as existing areas of erosion and areas
where culverts and irrigation pipe are removed. See Appendix B, S1-S9 for more detail regarding these
activities.
3.3 Planting Plan
All riparian restoration areas will be planted from top of bank back at least 30 feet from ditches and 50
feet from mitigated streams (and in the case of JH5, the existing stream) with bare root tree seedlings on
a nine by six-foot spacing to achieve an initial density of 680 trees per acre. Planting of the Project where
riparian buffer restoration is being performed will meet the performance standards outlined in the Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0295. The vegetation data will be collected no earlier than late August of each year. This
includes treating invasive species and planting at least four species of native hardwood bare root trees.
The buffer mitigation planting plan and species composition will also be consistent with the stream
mitigation planting plan. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Schafale 2012) will be the target community
type and will be used for all areas within the Project. This community composition is highly diverse and
is suitable for wet tolerances from somewhat wet to very wet that will ultimately prove successful given
the Project's soil and landscape characteristics and will provide water quality and ecological benefits.
Notably, although bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) is technically considered a softwood tree, it is
included in the planting plan due to the significant amount of existing wetland at the Strawberry Hill site
and its proven success at other stream, wetland, and buffer mitigation projects with similar site
characteristics in Johnston County and the Neuse 01 service area. The initial planting of bare root trees
will occur either before Spring 2021 or after November 2021. The list of bare root tree species to be planted
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 13 July 2020

and their percentage of total species composition can be found in Table 5. Wherever possible, mature
vegetation will be preserved and incorporated into the buffer. Some areas adjacent to the forested areas
may require maintenance due to the rapid regeneration of some species, such as red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Additionally, the live -stake
plantings mentioned above in Section 3.2.4 will consist of black willow (Salix nigra) and silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum). Furthermore, the planting plan is depicted in Appendix B, P1.
Table 5. Tree Planting List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Species
Common Name
Spacing (ft)
Unit Type
Canopy or
Sub -canopy
% of Total
Species
Composition
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
9X6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
Betula nigra
River birch
9X6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
Liriodendron tulipifera
Yellow poplar
9X6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
Taxodium disticum
Bald cypress
9x6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
9X6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
9X6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
Quercus nigra
Water oak
9X6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel oak
9X6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
Quercus lyrata
Overcup oak
9X6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
Nyssa biflora
Swamp tupelo
9X6
Bare Root
Canopy
10
3.4 Easement Boundaries
Easement boundaries will be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Project and
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means
as allowed by Project conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation project and will include the name of the long-term steward and a
contact number. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on
an as needed basis. The easement boundary will be checked annually as part of monitoring activities and
the conditions as well as any maintenance performed will be reported in the annual monitoring reports to
DWR.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 14 July 2020

4 MONITORING PLAN
4.1 Monitoring Protocol and Success Criteria
Annual vegetation monitoring and visual assessments will be conducted. Riparian vegetation monitoring
where riparian buffer mitigation credits are being generated will be based on the "Carolina Vegetation
Survey -Ecosystem Enhancement Program Protocol for Recording Vegetation: Level 1-2 Plot Sampling
Only Version 4.2". Annual vegetation monitoring will occur each year for a minimum of five years and
will be conducted during the fall season with the first year occurring at least 6 months from initial planting.
Monitoring plots will be installed a minimum of 100 meters squared in size and will cover at least two
percent of the planted mitigation area. The entire planted area of the Project will generate riparian buffer
mitigation credits in the form of restoration and preservation; however, only the planted area within the
riparian buffer restoration areas will be monitored for vegetative success. Therefore, the creditable
restoration planted area is 15.13 acres, and there will be 13 vegetation plots measuring riparian buffer
mitigation success. These plots will be randomly placed throughout the planted riparian restoration area
and will be representative of the riparian community (Figure 7). The following data will be recorded for
all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. All stems in plots will
be flagged with flagging tape.
The measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at least four native hardwood
tree species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of stems, at a density of at least 260 stems
per acre at the end of Year 5. Native volunteer species may be included to meet the performance standards
upon approval by DWR. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and treated so that none become
dominant or alter the desired community structure of the site.
Photos will be taken from all photo points each monitoring year and provided in the annual reports. Visual
inspections and photos will be taken to ensure that applicable areas are being maintained and compliant.
A visual assessment of the conservation easement will also be performed each year to confirm:
• Easement markers are in good condition throughout the site;
• no encroachment has occurred;
• no invasive species occur in areas were invasive species were treated,
• diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement areas; and
• there has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would
negatively affect the functioning of the buffer.
A summary of project monitoring and maintenance activities can be found in Table 6.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 15 July 2020

Table 6. Summary of Project Monitoring and Maintenance Activities
Component/ Monitoring
Maintenance through project close-out
Feature
Vegetation Annual
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
vegetation
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
monitoring
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species
shall be treated by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Invasive and Nuisance Visual
Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and treated so that none become
Vegetation Assessment
dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Project. Locations of invasive
and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
Project Boundary Visual
Project boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
Assessment
mitigation project and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs
identifying the property as a mitigation project and will include the name of the long-
term steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by Project conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/
signage maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
4.2 Adaptive Management Plan and Project Maintenance
Adaptive measures will be developed, or appropriate remedial actions taken if in the event that the project,
or a specific component of the project, fails to achieve the defined success criteria. DMS must approve all
adaptive management plans prior to submittal to DWR.
Remedial actions will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified in this Mitigation Plan, and will
include identification of the causes of failure, remedial design approach, work schedule, and monitoring
criteria that will consider physical and climatic conditions.
Initial plant maintenance may include a one-time mowing, prior to initial planting to remove undesirable
species. If mowing is deemed necessary by RES during the monitoring period, RES must first receive
approval by DMS and then by DWR prior to any mowing activities to ensure that no buffer violations will
be committed. Failure to receive approval to mow within the Neuse River buffer, as defined in 15A NCAC
02B .0233 by DWR, could result in Neuse River buffer violations and violations of the conservation
easement. If necessary, RES will develop a species -specific control plan.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 16 July 2020

5 STEWARDSHIP
The Project will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. NCDEQ Stewardship Program shall
serve as the conservation easement holder and entity responsible for long term stewardship of the Project.
This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will
conduct periodic inspection of the Project 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 Statute GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest
gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship
administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage to identify boundary markings as needed. Any
livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility of the owner of the
underlying fee to maintain.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 17 July 2020

6 REFERENCES
Endangered Species Act of 1973. Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884. 16 USC 1531-1543,
Environmental Laboratory. (1987). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2018. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. North
Carolina Panel 2602; map number 3720260200K, effective 6/20/2018.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934. Public Law 85-72, 79 Stat. 216. 16 USC 661-667(d).
Lee, T.L, Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., and Wentworth, T.R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-levl-2.pdf.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended Section 106). 16 USC 470. 36 CFR 800, 23
CFR 771, 36 CFR 60, 36 CFR 63.
NCDENR. 2010. "N.C. Wetland Assessment Method User Manual Version 4. L" N.C. Wetland
Functional Assessment Team.
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater
Classifications in North Carolina. Raleigh. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_ library
get file?p 1 id=1169848&folderld=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf, accessed January 2018.
NCDWQ. (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2010. Methodology for Identification of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins. Version 4.11. Raleigh.
NC Environmental Management Commission. 2014. Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0295 - Mitigation Program
Requirements for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers.
NCNHP (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). 2019. Natural Heritage Element Occurrences. June
2019.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS).
1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina.
USDA-NRCS. 2014. Web Soil Survey GIS Data
.http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda. og v/App/HomePa.e� accessed March 2020.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 18 July 2020

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Information, Planning, and Conservation
(IPAC) Online Screening Tool. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/; accessed June 2019.
Strawberry Hill Mitigation Project Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS Project #: 100094 19 July 2020

Figures

i a, "E :.
al 97
k l.I I :':P
Union Hope
97
ff��
L` J Z ulon 261
7°
Lizard lick
a a
-,.I-�]
Ea le Rock -ri
g
Middlesex xeA
:•" H 11 1
!{nightdale —
Raleigh
Wendell
Bailey
Angelview
Slms
-
•:�irr 1. •,'
kr.r
Shotwell G
E
_
Garner
—+
7°
Auburn
f� Archer Lodge
Jordan
®
Q
Elloams
ossroads
Claryton ax
Powhalan
7p
r sa �i
Ker.l';
Wllsons Mills
39
O
—
G�9
o
Micro
Willow
Springs
k
i rr•I
Selma
Imo'
McGee
Q
Crossroads
Ito
Smithfield
Pone
Level
hsltt.nt
71 ❑ 7f7
P kti ,
Oliver
e
A.
9 Princeton
s Four Oaks
70 �`
Q
3pr ® :fhitley Place �p
Rosewood
❑3t' ses
L, Strawberry Hill
Mitigation Project Goldsb
B nson 0
55 117
7t71
urlington
Bentonville
a°t Mar -Mac y �4rs ,,
"Win Peacocks
Crossroads
Dunn
55 Grantham Brogden
exs
Newton Grove
Legend
Hcpew
Proposed Easement 3 ss
suttontown M; I:vc
Neuse River Basin - 03020201 will
5a
" Figure 1 - Service Area Date: 612412020
Drawn by: MDD
Strawberry Hi!! es
s Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM
0 2.5 5
Johnston County, North Carolina inch = 5 miles

91411� Stich
� glnrn:h
Green ChapO Misslarrary
Baptisl Church
O'O9oerr a
Legend
Proposed Easement
ffKi
2-
KD-s Carls
Sevens Sausage Co.. IRc7-7
r
Fz,a
" Figure 3 - Project Vicinity Dale: 611612020
. . r Drawn by MD❑
Strawberry Hill res
8 Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM
0 600 1.000
t inch = 1,000 feet
Feel Johnston County, North Carolina

Replace Culvert
Crossing
•�' ✓� 1.-
Remo�r Ci.i! �crts.
yL * Demolish Buildiru;
IA
Legend
Proposed Easement (22.12 ac.)
- Proposed Top of Bank
R1parian Buffer Mitigation Approach
Restoration, 0-100'
Restoration, 101-200'
Restoration (Ditch), 0-50'
Preservation, 0-100'
Preservation, 101-200'
h
Remove Abandoned
Irrigation Pipe
yvi
Debris, such as brick and concrete piles, scattered throughout
the Project area, will be removed and disposed of off -site. See
Appendix B, S1-S9 for locations of these areas and more
detail regarding removal activities.
" Figure 4 - Buffer Mitigation Conceptual Dale: 612412020
w 8 Strawberry Hill Drawn by: MDD res
A111W 0 250 S:i:i Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM
finch =500feet
FaP[ Johnston County, North Carolina

Le-gend
Proposed Easement (22.12 ac)
Proposed Top of Bank
Planting Area
Fixed Vegetation Plots
Stream and Buffer
Buffer Only
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Approach
Restoration, 0-100'
Restoration, 101-200'
Restoration (Ditch), 0-50'
Preservation, 0-100'
Preservation, 101-200'
WAMaXi
-7- IRA",
A -
Figure 7 - Buffer Monitoring Plan Date 6124)2020
Strawberry Hill Drawn by: MDD res
Mitigation Project Checkedby: JRM
Johnston County, North Carolina 1 inch = 500 feet 1 0

Appendix Al
Buffer Credit Calculation

Table A. [Strawberry Hill], (OMSft 1000941, Project Credits
Neuse 03020201. Outside Fails Lake
Project Area
N Credit Conversion Ratio lft'/pound]
P Credit Conversion Ratio (Ftl/ ound)
19.16394
N/A
Creditrype
Location
Subjed7 (enter
NO if
eptlemerdl or
r
Feature Type
Midgatlan Activity
Min -Max Buffer
Width {ft}
Feature Name
Total Area (ft }
Total {Creditabte}
Area of Buffer
Mitlgat[on {ft'1
Initial Credit
Ratio 1x-1)
% Full Credit
Final tredlt
Ratio Ix:ll
Convertible to
Riparian
Buffer?
Riparian Suffer
Credits
convertible
to Nutrient
offset?
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: N jib
I 1
Delivered
Nutrient
Offxei: P Ibs
I }
Buffer
Rurai
No
Ditch
Restoration
0.50
JH2, JH3, IH4
146,626
146.626
1
100%
1A0000
N/A
146,626.000
N/A
7,651.141
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
0-100
1H 1, JH5
495,540
496,540
1
100%
1.00000
N/A
496540.000
N/A
25.910.121
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I/P
Restoration
101.200
)HI, JHS
16,097
15,097
1
33%
3-03030
N/A
5,312.015
N/A
839.963
—
Totals:
659,263
659,263
Enter Freservation Credits Below
Elieible for Preservation Ift'1: 219,754
Credit Type
location
Subject]
Feature Type
Mittdathn Activity
Min -Max Buffer
VAdth (tt}
Feature Name
Total Area lsfl
Total lCreditalse}
Area for buffer
r
Mitigation {N J
Initial Credit
8atfv 1x:1}
%Full Credit
!:foal Credit
Ratio (x:l)
Riparian
Buffer Cred[is
Bvfer
Rural
Yes
I I P
Preservation
0-100
JH1, JH5
30,893
801893
10
100%
10.00000
8.089.300
Rural
Yes
I / P
101.200
Im 1, JH5
792
792
10
33%
30-30303
26.136
—
Preservation Area Subtotal lft'):J 81,685
Preservation as %Total Area of Buffer Mitigation: 9.3%
Ephemeral Reaches as %Total Area of Buffer Mitigation: 0.u45
1. The Randleman Lake buffer rules allow some ditches to be Classified as subject according to LSA NCAC 0i0.0250151(a)-
last u pd ated 01/17/2020
TOTALAREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TA BM)
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Restoratlon:
659,263
649,478.015
Enhancement:
0
0,000
Preservation:
81,685
8,115,436
Total Riparian Buffer:
740,948
656,593-ASl
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
I Square Feet
Credits
Nutrient
Offset:
Nitrogen:
Phosphorus:
0
0.000
0.000

Appendix A2
Buffer Viability