20180854 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2020_20201229

ID#* 20180854 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 12/30/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/29/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r Stream r Wetlands rJ Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Lindsay Crocker
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20180854
Existing IDV
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Wingfoot
Pitt
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Wingfoot_100078_MY2_2020.pdf 15.3MB
Rease upload only one PDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

MY02 Monitoring Report
Winfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Pitt County, NC
DMS Project No. 100078
DMS Contract Number: 7607
DWR Project Number: 2018-0854
Data Collection Period: September 23, 2020
Submittal Date: December 1, 2020
Little Contentnea Creek Watershed
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020203
RFP #16-007402
Prepared For:
rk�
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

V,
CLEARWATER MITIGATION
S O L U T z O N S
December 23, 2020
Ms. Lindsay Crocker
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
Raleigh, NC 27603
Re: Wingfoot — Task 6 MY 2 (DMS Project No. 100078)
Response to Comments
Dear Ms. Crocker,
Please find below the response to comments on the Longhorn Buffer Mitigation Plan provided by
DMS dated December 7, 2020:
1. Section 4.3 states that there were 12 hardwood species identified on -site, but the vegetation
table only shows 10 (which includes privet, sweetgum, and red maple). Please revise to be
clear or explain that statement.
Re: 10 hardwood species were identified, and the statement in Section 4.3 has been
revised from 12 to 10 hardwood species identified.
2. Digital Review:
- Please include a shapefile capturing the diffuse flow credit reduction area or segment this
area from the buffer restoration ditch polygon and resubmit these data.
- Please include the photo station shapefile that was used in Fig. 9.
Re: - Included, but as noted, due to pixel size in GIS, it would only allow for 0.100008
acre, and not the exact 0.10-acre
- Photo station shapefile included.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions at 919-624-6901.
Sincerely,
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
604 Macon Place
Raleigh, NC 27609
919-624-6901
[e-mail]

MY02 Monitoring Report
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Pitt County, NC
DMS Project No. 100078
DMS Contract Number: 7607
DWR Project Number: 2018-0854
Data Collection Period: September 23, 2020
Submittal Date: November 30, 2020
Little Contentnea Creek Watershed
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020203
PREPARED FOR:
7 #1
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
PREPARED BY:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
LF-IR WA TER AETIGA 77ON
SOLUTIONS 6
604 Macon Place
Raleigh, North Carolina
Authorized Representative: Mr. Kevin Yates
Phone: [phone]
This Mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
NCAC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015 and Nutrient Offsets Payments Rule 15A
NCAC 02B. 0240, amended effective September 1, 2010 and DWR —1998. Methodology and Calculations
for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures
for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Kevin Yates, Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Christian Preziosi, Land Management Group
Wes Fryar, Land Management Group
Kim Williams, Land Management Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Mitigation Project Summary...........................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Goals..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Pre -Construction Site Conditions..............................................................................................2
2.0. Determination of Credits.................................................................................................................3
3.0. Baseline Summary...........................................................................................................................4
3.1 Planting Preparation..................................................................................................................4
3.2 Riparian Area Restoration and Enhancement Activities..........................................................5
3.3 Riparian Area Preservation Activities.......................................................................................6
4.0 Annual Monitoring and Performance Criteria................................................................................6
4.1 Methods.....................................................................................................................................6
4.2 Tables.........................................................................................................................................6
4.3 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................................7
4.4 Maintenance and Management................................................................................................7
5.0 References........................................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Figure1....................................................................................................................................... Vicinity Map
Figure2................................................................................................................................. Watershed Map
Figure 3.................................................................................. USGS Farmville 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Figure 4..................................................................................................................... NC DOT QL2 LiDAR Map
Figure 5..............................................................................................................Pitt County NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 6..........................................................................................................1998 NAPP Aerial Photography
Figure 7............................................................. 2016 Aerial with Conservation Easement and Disked Areas
Figure 8A.................................................................................................................Mitigation Plan Overview
Figure 8B........................................................................................ Mitigation Plan Inset with Plot Locations
Figure 9.............................................................................................................Current Condition Plan View
Table 1........................................................................................................Buffer Project Attributes
Table 2.............................................................................................Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Table3......................................................................................................................... Planting Plan
Table 4............................................................................................. Planted and Total Stem Counts
AppendixA................................................................................................................ Figures/Tables
Appendix B................................................................................... Veg Data/Veg Plot Photos/Photo Stations
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Monitoring Report (MY02) i I P a g e
DMS Project No. 100114
December 1, 2020

1.0 Mitigation Project Summary
The Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Restoration Project ("the Site") is a buffer restoration project located in Pitt
County, approximately three (3) miles southeast of Farmville, NC and east of State Route 1139 (Moye
Turnage Road) (Figure 1). The Site is comprised of 22.31 acres and is located within the Little Contentnea
Creek TLW of the Neuse River (Figures 2 & 3). The buffer restoration and enhancement areas are located
along unnamed tributaries (UTs) and drainages that flow directly into Little Contentnea Creek
approximately 0.3 miles downstream (Figures 3-5). The Site is surrounded by areas managed for
agricultural production (corn, cotton, and soybean) and prior to the project completion lacked existing
forested buffer along a majority of the streams and drainageways dissecting the site. The Site is expected
to generate 541,415.369 riparian buffer credits (BMU).
The Site is located within Hydologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020203070030 and North Carolina Department of
Water Resources (NC DWR) Sub -Basin 03-04-07. Four (4) unnamed tributaries on the Site flow into Little
Contentnea Creek (Reach Al, B1-B3). Little Contentnea Creek is a 303d-listed impaired waterbody with a
NC DEQ surface water classification of C; Sw, NSW.
1.1 Project Goals
The main goals of the project are to provide water quality and ecological enhancements to the Little
Contentnea Creek watershed of the Neuse River basin by creating a riparian corridor and restoring the
historic riparian buffer. The project addresses the watershed goals identified in the Neuse River Basin
Restoration Plan (RBRP) (NC EEP, 2010). These goals include:
• Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers;
• Promote re-establishment of riparian corridors of substantial width to improve connectivity of
protected lands; and
• Support implementation of Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) strategies.
These watershed goals have been achieved via the restoration and enhancement of woody buffer along
unnamed tributaries of the Little Contentnea Creek (a 303d-listed impaired waterbody). Specific
objectives of the project which achieved the desired goals included:
• Conversion of existing agricultural fields into wooded riparian buffer zones along existing
tributaries via planting of characteristic hardwood species;
• Enhancement of degraded buffer areas (in areas of fields laid to fallow) via planting of
characteristic hardwood species;
• Ensuring diffuse flow throughout the riparian buffer zone;
• Establishment of a conservation easement to protect the riparian buffer restoration site in
perpetuity and to connect to existing DMS protected site; and
• Invasive species management during the monitoring period.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Monitoring Report (MY2) 1 I P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
December 1, 2020

Ancillary benefits of the project include:
• Increase of organic material as food for invertebrates, fish and wildlife;
• Supply of woody debris that provides increased niche habitat for fish, invertebrates and
amphibians;
• Reduction of sunlight reaching the stream and modulation of surface water temperatures;
• Floodwater attenuation via temporary storage, interception and slow releases from heavy rains;
and
• Habitat connectivity between currently protected riparian buffer areas (NC DMS Fox Run Site) and
downstream riverine swamp forest via a protected riparian habitat corridor (including expansion
of refuge and foraging habitat).
1.2 Pre -construction Site Conditions
The project includes 22.31 acres of mostly open agricultural fields along four (4) unnamed tributaries to
Little Contentnea Creek. The Site has historically been managed for agricultural production (corn, cotton,
and soybean). Site drainage and hydrology have been historically altered with channelized streams and
cleared agricultural lands prevalent on historic aerial photos dating back to the 1940s. The majority of
the Site has been cleared as recent as 1998 (Figure 6) with some areas revegetating in recent years (Figure
7).
The Site consists of four reaches (Al, 131, 132, and 133) as illustrated in Figures 8A and 813. Reach Al is a
perennial stream located on the northern boundary of the site and is contiguous with the existing NC DMS
buffer project easement (Fox Run). Reach Al flows from the NC DMS easement on the northwestern
boundary to the north and into Little Contentnea Creek approximately 1,800 If downstream. There is
approximately 850 If of stream associated with Reach Al within the proposed buffer easement area. The
upper portion of Reach Al has been restored as a forested riparian buffer to 200-ft. The lower segment
near the confluence with Reach 131 has been restored to 100-ft. Reach 131 is the perennial stream that
dissects the central portion of the site. It drains into Little Contentnea Creek (approximately 1,300 If
downstream from the eastern property boundary). There is approximately 2,690 If of stream channel
associated with Reach 131 within the proposed buffer easement area. The cleared portion of Reach 131 has
been restored to 100-ft. A small area along the north side has been enhanced by establishing woody stems
to 100-ft. The remaining portion of the reach near the confluence with Reach Al and along the north side
of the reach (extending east to the property line) has re -vegetated in past years and has been preserved.
Reaches 132 and 133 flow into Reach 131 from smaller drainage areas on the southern portion of the site.
Reach 132 is partly an intermittent stream consisting of approximately 210 If of stream channel and partly
a non -stream tributary of approximately 385 If of channel. Reach 133 is a non -stream tributary that flows
directly into reach 132 and consists of approximately 420 If of channel. The first 50-ft from these tributaries
have been restored. The project attributes are listed in Table 1, located in Appendix A.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Monitoring Report (MY2) 2 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
December 1, 2020

2.0 Determination of Credits
On August 30, 2018, Ms. Katie Merritt of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) performed an evaluation
of surface water features and adjacent riparian areas within the proposed mitigation site for the
determination of riparian buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015)
and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240 (refer to attached Site Viability Letter,
Appendix B). Based upon this evaluation, DWR determined that areas within 200 ft of Reach A-1 and Reach
B-1 are eligible for both buffer restoration credit and nutrient offset credit (with the latter eligible in non -
forested fields only). Riparian areas along Reach B-2 and B-3 are eligible for nutrient offset. In addition,
the downstream segment of B-2 is eligible for buffer restoration credits. In addition to buffer restoration
on subject streams, per the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rules (15 A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)), alternative
mitigation is proposed on the site in the form of: 1) preservation of buffers on subject streams and, 2)
restoration and enhancement on ditches. The project is in compliance with these rules as it meets the
following criteria:
Preservation on Subject Streams (15A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)(5)):
(A) The buffer width is at least 30 feet from the stream;
(B) The area meets the requirements of 15 NCAC 02R 0.0403(c)(7), (8), and (11) with no known
structures, infrastructure, hazardous substances, soild waste, or encumbrances within the
mitigation boundary;
(C) Preservation mitigation is being requested on no more than 25% of the total buffer mitigation
area (Table 2, Appendix A)
Restoration and Enhancement on Ditches (15 NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)(8)):
Reach B-3 and the upstream segment of Reach B-2 were determined to be conditionally eligible for buffer
credit value provided that the watershed drainage area is of sufficient size to meet the rule criteria per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(8). Note that the ditches proposed for buffer restoration meet the following
criteria:
(A) are directly connected with and draining towards an intermittent or perennial stream;
(B) are contiguous with the rest of the mitigation site protected under a perpetual conservation
easement;
(C) stormwater runoff from overland flow shall drain towards the ditch (Not Applicable);
(D) are between one and three feet in depth; and
(E) the entire length of the ditches have been in place prior to the effective date of the applicable
buffer rule.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Monitoring Report (MY2) 3 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
December 1, 2020

F) The buffer width is at least 30 feet from the stream
Similarly, in accordance with Subparagraph (o)(8), the perpetual conservation easement includes the ditch
and the confluence of the ditch with the stream. The easement includes language prohibiting future
maintenance of the ditch. In addition, the watershed draining to the ditch is at least four times larger
than the restored or enhanced area along the ditch. The watershed draining to the upper end of Reach
B-2 is approximately 782,392 sf (relative to a corresponding buffer area of 32,671 sf). The watershed
draining to Reach B-3 is approximately 312,499 sf (relative to a corresponding buffer area of 35,609 sf).
There are no known site constraints that would impede or adversely affect the restoration, enhancement,
and preservation of riparian buffer within the recorded easement area. Diffuse flow of runoff will be
maintained in the riparian buffer except where the upstream portions of non -subject ditch segments of
B2 and B3 enter the buffered area. Where such diffuse flow cannot be attained in these areas and where
NCDWR agrees that such treatment of stormwater is not possible, deduction of credit has been calculated
and applied following guidance of Buffer Interpretation/Clarification Memo #2008-019. In these
upstream areas, an immediate drainage area equaling 0.10-acre from the point of discharge has been
used to calculate the area of buffer being short-circuited by the ditch. Since the upstream origin of the
ditch is not buffered, the credit deduction has been applied to the most upstream portion of the ditch on
the Site.
Mitigation credits are presented in Table 2 and Figure 8A/8B in Appendix A and are based upon the
conservation easement survey included in Appendix C.
3.0 Baseline Summary
The project team restored high quality riparian buffers along all unnamed tributaries within the Site. The
project design ensured that no adverse impacts to wetlands of existing riparian buffers occurred during
implementation. Refer to Figure 8A/8B for the conceptual design of the project. Details of the restoration
activity that occurred follows in the sections below. Refer to site photos in Appendix D.
3.1 Planting Preparation
Based upon pre -project assessment of compaction within the proposed planting areas, the project team
identified two select areas of the buffer restoration project that warranted site disking (refer to Figure 7).
The areas included an approximate 150-ft long area of the right top of bank of the upper end of Reach B-
1 and the riparian area of the right top of bank of Reach A-1 (including the area of field identified as the
"Riparian Habitat Corridor"). These areas were disked prior to planting to reduce compaction and to
enhance microtopography. In addition, selective mowing occurred within the riparian buffer
enhancement area to limit blackberry and smaller, volunteer red maple (refer to Figure 7). This area was
observed to contain a population of Japanese honey -suckle (Lonicera japonica) which was spot treated
with herbicide. No other site preparation occurred. No observed drain tiles were observed prior to, or
during, construction and planting and no other land disturbance was needed to maintain diffuse flow as
required.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Monitoring Report (MY2) 4 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
December 1, 2020

3.2 Riparian Area Restoration and Enhancement Activities
Prior to planting, the conservation easement boundary was marked using 6-inch diameter treated posts
buried 2 feet, standing 6 feet above the ground surface, within the agricultural fields. T-posts were
installed to provide supplemental marking within areas between the treated posts, within the
enhancement area, and within the preservation areas as needed. The easement boundary was also
marked with standard yellow Conservation Area signs, per the 01/23/14 NCDMS Boundary Marking
Standards.
The planting plan consisted of the planting of four hardwood species and one softwood species on a
density of approximately 538 stems per acre. This density was selected to be sufficient to meet
performance standards outlined in the Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees per acre at the end of five
years. Species selection and distribution were matched closely to micro -site hydrologic and edaphic
conditions and include species characteristic of riparian buffer assemblages in the watershed and adjacent
to the site. Species more tolerant of poorly drained soils (i.e. bald cypress and willow oak) were planted
within lower landscape positions generally consisting of the Tuckerman soil series while species
characteristically occurring in better drained soils will be planted in slightly higher convex landscape
positions. The selected native trees are well -suited to the site -specific conditions of the property to
promote high survivorship rates. No one tree species planted was greater than 50% of the established
stems. Site planting was conducted on March 12-131", 2019 by Superior Forestry Services, Inc. and
supervised by project managers from both Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and Land Management Group.
Table 3 summarizes the trees planted by species for the Wingfoot mitigation site.
Table 3. Planting Plan'
Common Name
Scientific Name
% Composition
Acreage
Quantity
River Birch
Betula nigra
25
3.72
2,000
American Sycamore
Plantanus occidentalis
17.5
2.60
1,400
Bald Cypress'
Taxodium distichum
27.5
4.09
2,200
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
15
2.23
1,200
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
15
2.23
1,200
Total
N/A
100
14.87
8,000
'Note planted area includes approximate 1.0 acres of field included for riparian habitat corridor. While no credit is
proposed for this area, it was planted per the same specifications (species density and composition) as those
contained within final, approved mitigation plan.
2Cypress trees are conifers, but unlike most American softwoods, they are deciduous trees that shed foliage in the
fall like hardwoods. Although cypress is a softwood, it grows alongside hardwoods and was selected as an
appropriate species to be planted in the wetter parts of the site.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Monitoring Report (MY2) 5 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
December 1, 2020

3.3 Riparian Area Preservation Activities
No work was done in the buffer preservation areas. The preservation area will be protected in perpetuity
under a conservation easement.
4.0 Annual Monitoring and Performance Criteria
Annual Monitoring will be conducted during the growing season for a period of five years. The report will
include all information required by DMS monitoring guidelines including photographs, plot locations, and
documentation of existing species density and composition. Monitoring will be performed in accordance
with the Consolidated Mitigation Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) and current DMS standards. The
performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the guidance
documents outlined in the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295). Performance criteria will be
evaluated throughout the five-year post -construction monitoring.
4.1 Methods
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian buffer
at the end of the required monitoring period (Monitoring Year (MY05)). Vegetative monitoring included
the establishment of eleven (11) permanent plots consistent with the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
protocol Level 2 (version 4.2) (refer to Figure 9 for plot locations). Reference photos of the vegetation
plots and Site were taken at each predetermined photo point location. Appendix B includes the
monitoring year two (MY02) vegetation plot photographs and the planted and total stem counts. Any
vegetative problem areas in the site will be noted and reported in each monitoring report. Vegetative
problem areas may include areas that either lack vegetation or include populations of exotic vegetation.
Monitoring reports will identify any contingency measures that may need to be employed to remedy site
deficiencies.
Permanent photo stations were established across the project area in order to document site stability for
five years post construction. Markers were established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and view directions on the Site are photographed each year. Photo reference stations are shown
on Figure 9.
Visual assessments will be performed annually during the five-year monitoring period. Problem areas of
vegetative health will be noted and areas of concern will be mapped, photographed, and documented in
the subsequent annual monitoring report. Problem areas that are found will be re-evaluated in each
subsequent monitoring event.
4.2 Tables
(MY02) vegetation plot photographs and the planted and total stem counts (Table 4) are included in
Appendix B.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Monitoring Report (MY2) 6 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
December 1, 2020

4.3 Results and Discussion (MY02)
Annual monitoring (MY02) was conducted on September 23, 2020 by LMG staff. Overall, the Site has
exceeded the required vegetative success criteria. An average stem density of 596 planted stems per acre
was tallied across the site (approximately 90% of the recorded baseline (MYO) density (666 stems per
acre)). Stem densities within individual monitoring plots range from 324 to 728 planted stems per acre.
Stem counts within individual plots range from 8 to 18 stems with an average of 15 planted stems per
plot. Ten different hardwood species were observed across the site, exceeding the minimum diversity
criterion. All vegetation plots have met the MY02 success criteria and many planted stems have exhibited
prolific growth during the first two years of monitoring. The Site is on track to meet the final success
criteria. Refer to Figure 9 (Current Condition Plan View) and Table 4 in Appendix B for additional
information and proposed supplemental planting areas.
As documented in previous years, invasive species were observed and limited to the vicinity of Plot 8 and
consisted of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and a few sporadic stems of Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense). The project team plans to treat these areas in the Spring of 2021 and will coordinate
this effort with DMS. The continued presence of Japanese honeysuckle at this location appears to be
affecting stem growth and survivorship. In addition, high density of blackberry was observed in this area
and may also be contributing to planted tree mortality. Higher mortality and low vigor of planted stems
were observed within Plot 8 during MY02, and the Plot has exhibited a decline in the number of stems
documented each year since MYO. However, it should be noted that Plot 8 does meet the minimum stem
count requirement for MY02 and is also likely to meet this requirement by MY05 with the inclusion of
volunteer species recorded in subsequent monitoring years. Since this area is likely to populate with
volunteers throughout the monitoring period, no additional planting is recommended at this time. Refer
to Appendix B for monitoring year two (MY02) vegetation plot photographs and the planted and total
stem counts.
4.4 Maintenance and Management
Overall, the Site appears to be progressing well towards the target success criteria. Small populations of
invasive species were noted in the vicinity of Plot 8. The project team plans to treat this area in the Spring
of 2021 and will coordinate this effort with DMS. The site will continue to be monitored for problem areas.
In addition, invasive treatment areas will continue to be monitored, and invasive vegetation management
will continue to be implemented if additional exotic species volunteer into the site. If it is determined that
the Site's ability to achieve the performance standards arejeopardized, staff members of NCDMS/NCDWR
will be notified, and an adaptive management plan will be developed to address these issues.
5.0 References
Lee, Michael T. Peet, Robert K., Steven D. Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Monitoring Report (MY2) 7 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
December 1, 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Randolph County.
http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009. http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/cape fear/RBRP%20Cape%20Fear%202008.pdf
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2017. Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer
Baseline & Annual monitoring Report Template (Version 2.0, 05-2017). Raleigh, North Carolina.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Li
bra ry/Guidance%20and%20Templa to%20Documents/RB_NO_Base_Mon Template_2.0_2017_5.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Monitoring Report (MY2) 8 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
December 1, 2020

Figures/Tables

-$CraftlA r S
'A
rm
ro
264
urt
..
May or UESO �N���" �, s���
AAqq
Y
17 �{ Frog
u
258
13
-�`: s _ la Field - = y .. .s �y - it lid S�r p DAVE,,,,
� � - {5 jam_ � QRLII��� RL? � � -
TOP-
ds
-, 13 471 _ _
roSSroa �_ 4,
r M
C
Public Use Airport (not listed as a general aviation airport nor listed
in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems or "NPIAS')
L:\W ETLAN DS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: Del-orme 2012 Atlas & Gazeteer, Pages 43 & 65 SCALE 1" = 1 mile
Wingfoot Riparian CLF,4RWATER ffTIGA77ON
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLTTTTO'vs
Cataloging Unit 03020203 Figure 1
Pitt County, NC Vicinity Map
March 2018 LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP.-
LMG # 40-18-093 En f,onmen mf Consurron rs

' Halifax
a`
4
Franklin s=' -
`R, oa 'n
Nash '
r4 Ta +c
'• Edgecombe
Rork II R•RR `.
r . y
w fr
1 +�
it Pitt +
258
264
'..li 4 R.�■R•rer �`- -Wingfoot
Johnston .� .................
� Site
Greene
r
L-1 13
`*......� '"
04
I I Sandhill
- ..ram
Lenoir Craven
Sampson �4•.4,. ,........��.! t
J�a
■ R•' ' *+ .+. .NCDOT GIS Unit, Esri, HERE, Garmin, ©O enStreetM ntributors,
-- ea4 . p - P, F° •)
2 � •*��; '+ OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons -Share Alike License 44
D u p l i n (CC -BY -SA)
Legend
- Project Boundary
Targeted Local Watershed (03020203070030)
8-Digit Hydrologic Unit (03020203) SCALE 1" - 10 Miles
Wingfoot Riparian c'r�Rrlar�x.lr�rlu.tnov
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLM07v51 Figure 2
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC Watershed Map
March 2018 mow �coM_
LMG # 40-18-093

C7 71 2-
SITE r
FOX IRiUN
-� RIPARIAN BUIFIFER� s:
MITIGATION SATE\L-101 Ail
/
COD
corn
rc-
34
o
20
o
j { 05
N •
- f 1 }
NC911, NCCGiAM
A;:ERE pnStree Map.contrib utors
Legend
® Conservation Easement
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute. SCALE 1" — 1 500'
Map Source: USGS Farmville Quadrangle 7.5 minute —
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
CLEARWA TER ffTTGA 77011T
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP.—
En tn! Co.wfty rs
Figure 3
Topographic Map

Legend
w, Fox IRUIN _-. k-.- _._..— Elevation
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE 78.49 - 83.13
73.85 - 78.49
SITE - -
. 69.21 - 73.85
64.57 - 69.21
59.93 - 64.57
55.29 - 59.93
50.65 - 55.29
46.01 - 50.65
41.37 - 46.01
Legend
® Conservation Easement
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: NC Floodplain Mapping Program 2014 QL2 LiDAR Data SCALE 1 ° = 700'
Wingfoot Riparian CLF,4RWAT'ER kffTIGA77ON
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLTTTTO'Vs
Cataloging Unit 03020203 Figure 4
Pitt County, NC LiDAR map
March 2018 LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP.—
LMG # 40-18-093 En ironmentol Consulron rs

Ch ocB
LY
WEI rya ExB T SITE 1 / FOX RUIN 1�' RIPARIAN BUFFER BY QcB Co
Ly Ex8 Er.A MITIGATION SITE
rA Co ill NrG 1 4 WaB WaB
ExB ExB
NrB ` u r
LY -J l
aC L�
Goa Co Wa �€?'�. . . �'. f ' N
ExB ExB Co
OcBrc3
We, Pa OCR
�� • • WaB E'Q BIn
AgB
ExA
ExA ExA Dc$ Ra Mao v .� ALB WaB
I? MaB Tu
r
ExA ` �a GoB -�
WaB 4s
-- A` LY a B �� Pa A B
Wa BCo
_
Ag ALegend — �OCB
ga loamy sand, banded substratum, 0-6% slopes �ExA Ba j NrB Os�� ;� +
Bb: Bibb complex
Co: Coxville fine sandy loam
Crb: Craven fine sandy loam, 1-6% slopes NrB ExA \J
ExA: Exum fine sandy loam, 0-1 % slopes }
GoA: Goldsboro sandy loam, 0-1 % slopes — - WaB ExA Ra
GoB: Goldsboro sandy loam, 1-6% slopes Ra
Ly: Lynchburg fine sandy loam oA Oc6 Tu ~
MaB: Masada sandy loam, 04% slopes
NrB2: Norfolk sandy loam, 1-6% slopes, eroded
OcB: Ocilla loamy fine sand, 04% slopes
Ra: Rains fine sandy loam
Tu: Tuckerman fine sandy loam ® Conservation Easement
WaB: Wagram loamy sand, 0-6% slopes
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute. SCALE 1" - 1,000'
Map Source: NRCS Pitt County Soil Survey, 1974 -
Wingfoot Riparian CLEARTVA TER lffTTG37I0-NT
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLI-, -Tovs
Cataloging Unit 03020203 Figure 5
Soils Map
Pitt County, NC
March 2018 LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP:—
LMG # 40-18-093 En vf,anmen[nl Co nsulton rs

A _
FOX IRUN '
�I► R IFARfAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
SITE
eT.'4y�[
r
I - _
i s , N 911, NCCGIA, NCCGIA' i, ERE, Garmin, © i r
Legend
® Conservation Easement
L:\W ETLAN DS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 1998 NAPP Aerial Photography SCALE 1" = 700'
Wingfoot Riparian CLF,4RWATER ff77GA77ON
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLTTTrom 4
Cataloging Unit 03020203 Figure 6
Pitt County, NC 1998 Aerial Photograph
March 2018 LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP.—
LMG # 40-18-093 En f,onmen mf Consurron rs

LEGEND
Parcel Boundary (-127 ac.)
Conservation Easement (Surveyed) (-22.31 ac.)
/
r Top Of Bank
< e
Proposed Disking Area (-1.39ac.)
Proposed Mowing Transect Area (—0.57ac.)
a
NOTES:
1. BUFFER MITIGATION BOUNDARIES BASED UPON BASE SURVEY DRAWING FROM K2 DESIGN GROUP.
0 200 400 800
SCALE 1 "=400'
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site CLEAR WATERhffTIGATlON
Cataloging Unit 03020203 SOLUEONSI Figure 7
Pitt County, NC Conservation Easement
4LMG
January2019 with Proposed Disking Areas
LMG 18.093 LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DWEr1 c—papr
L:\WETLANDS\2018 WETLANDS FILES\LMG18.305 --- Wnofoot Buffer Proiect. Kevin Yates\CAD\Winofoot.dwo

LEGEND
Parcel Boundary (-127 ac.)
7, Conservation Easement (Surveyed) (-22.31 ac.)
r Top Of Bank
Ditch .............
Monitoring Plots
Buffer Restoration - Stream (0 ft - 100 ft) (9.52 ac. = 414,635.6 BMU)
4:
_ *r Buffer Restoration - Ditch (0 ft - 50 ft) (1.44 ac. = 62,782 BMU)
Buffer Restoration - Stream (101 ft - 200 ft) (2.00 ac. = 28,725.8 BMU)
Buffer Enhancement - Stream (0.71 ac. = 15,427.5 BMU)
Buffer Preservation - Stream (4.62 ac. = 19,844 BMU
ii• _ ram, }' �, ,
Riparian Habitat Corridor (1.59 ac. = No credits)
'z � TOTAL CREDITS (19.94 ac = 541,415.369 BMU)
��
■ • oN pan `
(
'C. "%`
�f
j
NOTES:
1. BUFFER MITIGATION BOUNDARIES BASED UPON BASE SURVEY DRAWING FROM K2 DESIGN GROUP.
0 2100 400 800
SCALE 1 "=400'
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site CLEAR WATERhffTIGATlON
Cataloging Unit 03020203 SOLUEONS Figure 8B
Pitt County, NC 4LMG Mitigation Plan Inset
January 2019 with Plot Locations
LMG 18.093 LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DWEr1 c—papr
\WETLANDS\2018 WETLANDS FILES\LMG18.305 --- Wnofoot Buffer Proiect. Kevin Yates\CAD\Winofoot.dwo

Legend
B-1
►�i�i�i�i�i�i♦
p�'i!i?•
B-2
B-3
L:\WETLANDS\2018 WETLANDS FILES\LMG18.305 --- Wingfoot Buffer Project, Kevin Yates\Maps
Map Source: MY02 Drone Imagery (LMG)
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site LM G
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC LAN —
Map Date: 11-30-20
a DAVEY#. company
3805 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
Conservation Easement (Surveyed) (-22.31 ac.)
••••••• Top Of Bank
Buffer Restoration (0 ft - 100 ft - Stream)
® Buffer Restoration (0 ft - 100 ft - Ditch)
® Buffer Restoration (101 ft - 200 ft - Stream)
Buffer Enhancement - Stream
® Buffer Preservation - Stream
Riparian Habitat Cooridor
Perennial/Intermittent Streams
® Invasive Treatment Areas
••••••. Ditch
Woodline
Vegetation Plots
Photo Stations
Diffuse Flow Credit Reduction Area
k
a B-1
^*--F.�v... -.
N 0 150 300 600
Feet
Figure 9
Current Condition Plan View
(MYO2)

Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 — 2020
Project Name
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Restoration Project
Hydrologic Unit Code
03020203070030 (14 digit)
River Basin
Neuse
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35.565723,-77.533763
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
DB 3765 Page 517
Total Credits (BMU)
541,415.369 (sf)
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Plan Date
February 2019
Initial Planting Date
March 12th-13th, 2019
Baseline Monitoring Date
March 13th-20th, 2019
Baseline Report Date
September 2019
MY1 Report Date
December 2019
MY2 Report Date
December 2020
MY3 Report Date
MY4 Report Date
MY5 Report Date

ROY COOPER
Governor
Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Table 2. Wingfoot, 100078, Project Mitigation Credits
Neuse03O2O2O3
Service Area
19.16394
N Credit Ratio (sf/credit)
N/A
P Credit Ratio (sf/credit)
Subject?
Total
( enter NO if
Min -Max Buffer
(Creditable)
Initial Credit
Final Credit
Convertible
Riparian Buffer
Convertible
Delivered
Delivered
Credit Type
Location
ephemeral or
Feature Type
Mitigation Activity
Width (fit)
Feature Name
Total Area(sf)
Area of Buffer
Ratio (x:l)
%Full Credit
Ratio (x:l)
to Riparian
Credits
to Nutrient
Nutrient
Nutrient
ditch')
Mitigation (sf)
Buffer?
Offset?
Offset: N (Ibs)
Offset: P (Ibs)
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I/P
Restoration
0-100
Al, B1, B2
414,636
414,636
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
414,636.000
Yes
21,636.261
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
101-200
Al, Bl, B2
87,048
87,048
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
28,725.869
Yes
4,542.281
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I/P
Enhancement
0-100
Bl
30,855
1 30,855
1 2
100%
2.00000
Yes
15,427.500
No
—
—
Buffer
Rural
No
Ditch
Restoration
0-50
B2, B3(ditches)
71,494
62,782
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
62,782.000
Yes
3,730.652
—
Totals: 604,033
595,321
Enter Preservation Credits Below
Eligible for Preservation (sf):
198,440
lotai
(Creditable)
Credit Type Location Subject?
Feature Type
Min -Max Buffer
Mitigation Activity Width(ft)
Feature Name Total Area (sf)
Area for
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Final Credit
%Full Credit Ratio (x:1)
Riparian
Buffer Credits
Buffer
Mitigation (sf)
Rural Yes
I/P
0-100
Al, Bl 201,074
198,440
10
100% 10.00000
19,844.000
Preservation Area Subtotal (sf):
198,440
Preservation as %Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:
25.0%
TOTALAREAOF BUFFER
MITIGATION (TABM)
Ephemeral Reaches as %Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:
0.0%
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Restoration:
564,466
506,143.869
Enhancement:
30,855
15,427.500
Preservation:
198,440
19,844.000
Total Riparian Buffer:
793,761
541,415.369
TOTAL N UTRI ENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
I Square Feet
Credits
Nutrient I Nitrogen:
0.000
1. The Randleman lake buffer rules allow someditches to beclassifed
as subject according to 15A NCAC 0213.0250(5)(a).
Offset: hosphorus:l
0
0.000
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

_.. , 9 PAv .
Veg Data/Veg Plot Photos/Photo Stations

Table 4. Planted and Total Stems
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100078
Monitoring Year 2 — 2020
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
m
m
m
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 101/o
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

APPENDIX B. VEG PLOT PHOTOS
(1) Plot 1
(3) Plot 3
(5) Plot 5
(2) Plot 2
(4) Plot 4
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Appendix B 1 I P a g e
DMS ProjectNo. 100078

4
I:7.
�
� I
I
}
l
T
j:
t� 1
j�

APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS - EXISTING CONDITIONS
(1) PSI (looking north towards Reach A1)
(3) PS2 (looking west along Reach A1)
(5) PS3 (looking east along enhancement area)
(2) PSI (looking northeast towards CE boundary)
(4) PS2 (looking east along Reach A1)
(6) PS3 (looking northeast into Enhancement Area)
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Appendix B 1 I P a g e
DMS ProjectNo. 100078

APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS - EXISTING CONDITIONS
(7) PS4 (looking east along Reach 131)
h
(8) PS4 (looking northeast into restoration area)
(9) PS5 (looking north towards preservation area) (10) PS5 (looking west into Restoration Area)
(11) PS6 (looking north towards Reach B2)
(12) PS6 (looking west into Restoration Area)
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Appendix B 2 1 P a g e
DMS ProjectNo. 100078

APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS - EXISTING CONDITIONS
(13) PS7 (looking north along Reach 133)
(15) PS8 (looking west along Reach 131)
r -9"
(14) PS7 (looking north into Restoration Area)
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Appendix B 3 1 P a g e
DMS ProjectNo. 100078