20190157 Ver 2_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2021 (Buffer)_20220201

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20190157 Version* 2
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/01/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/1/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes ® No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20190157 Version:*2
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Perry Hill Mitigation Site
County: Orange
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: PerryHill_100093_Buffer_MY1_2021.pdf 5.87MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

2' X «.
•
t:�„ _� •
,�ypp
114,
'g is -e a`
gr
MONITORING YEAR 1 PERRY HILL MITIGATION SITE
ANNUAL BUFFER REPORT Orange County, NCNCDEQContract No. 7744
FINAL DMS Project No. 100093
NCDWR Project No. 2019-0157v2
RFP No. 16-007576
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Data Collection Period: October 2021
Draft Submission Date: December 2021
Final Submission Date: January 2022
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
IlkiiiiIIIIIP
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

PERRY HILL MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Buffer Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1
1.1 Project Summary 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 1
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment 2
1.3.1 Vegetative Assessment 2
1.3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 2
1.4 Monitoring Year 1 Summary 3
Section 2: METHODOLOGY 3
Section 3: REFERENCES 4
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Service Area Map
Figure 3 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Table 5 Adjacent Forested Areas Existing Tree and Shrub Species
Table 6 Planted Tree Species
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 4 Monitoring Plan View Map
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Overview Photographs
Vegetation Areas of Concern Photographs—Conservation Easement Encroachment
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 9 CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Table 10 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Buffer Report - Final i

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Summary
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Perry Hill Mitigation
Site (Site)for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS).The 26.88-acre Site encompasses portions of Perry Branch, three unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2,
and UT3) and two ephemeral channels (EC1 and EC3), all of which eventually drain to Falls Lake and the
Neuse River. A total of 24.71 acres (1,076,267 ft2) of riparian buffer have been restored or enhanced and
are expected to generate 874,590.412 riparian buffer credits, with potential to convert some buffer
credits to nutrient offset credits dependent on the need.The Site is located approximately three miles
northwest of Hillsborough, NC (Figure 1).The project resides within Hydrologic Unit Code
03020201030020 and North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub-basin 03-04-01.
Three unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, and UT3) drain to Perry Branch,which drains to Corporation Lake
water supply reservoir on the Eno River, and then Falls Lake.
Work at the Site was planned, designed, and constructed per the Perry Hill Mitigation Site—Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Plan (Wildlands Engineering, 2020) and the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015).The purpose of the riparian buffer restoration is to
provide riparian buffer credits to compensate for buffer impacts within the Hydrologic Unit Code
03020201 and the Falls Lake Watershed.The service area for the riparian buffer credits is depicted in
Figure 2.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to stream construction, the Perry Hill Site was cattle pasture and livestock had access to all
streams, causing streambank erosion. Onsite streams and riparian buffers at the Site were restored
and/or enhanced.
The major goals of the riparian restoration project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Neuse River Watershed within the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed by creating
a functional riparian corridor and restoring the riparian area.The project supports specific goals
identified in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities Plan (RBRP) for the Neuse River Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW).This document highlights the importance of riparian buffers for stream
restoration projects. Forested riparian areas immobilize and retain nutrients and suspended sediment.
The RBRP also supports the Falls Lake watershed plan. Falls Lake is a receiving water supply water body
downstream of the Site and is classified as WS-IV and NSW. Specific enhancements to water quality and
ecological processes are outlined below:
• Exclude cattle from project streams— Fencing has been installed around project areas adjacent
to cattle pastures.
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation—Planted native tree species in riparian zone
where tree growth was insufficient.
• Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses—Established a conservation easement
on the site.
The 26.88-acre Site is protected with a permanent conservation easement. Of the 26.88-acres, Neuse
riparian buffer credits were generated by restoring 16.77 acres and enhancing 7.94 acres. No buffer
credit will be generated from the remaining 2.17 acres. In general, riparian buffer restoration area
widths on streams extend out to 50 feet from top of bank on each side of the stream channel. Figure 3
and Table 1 in Appendix 1 detail the buffer credit generation.
viri Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Buffer Report- Final 1

1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
The Mitigation Plan (Wildlands Engineering, 2020)was submitted and accepted by DMS in July 2020.
Construction activities by Main Stream Earthwork, Inc. and tree planting by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
were both completed in April 2021.The baseline as-built survey was completed by IPW Construction
Group in April 2020. Refer to Appendix 1 for detailed project activity, history, contact information, and
watershed/site background information.
Vegetative performance for buffer restoration areas will be in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B
.0295(n)(2)(B), and (n)(4) (effective November 1, 2015).To meet success criteria, areas generating buffer
mitigation credits shall include a minimum of four native hardwood tree species,where no one species
is greater than 50 percent of stems, and shall have a survival of at least 260 planted stems per acre at
the end of the required five-year monitoring period. For monitoring to be completed and buffer credit
to be awarded, NCDWR must provide written approval of successful revegetation of buffer restoration
areas.
1.3.1 Vegetative Assessment
The quantity of monitoring vegetation plots was determined in accordance with the Carolina Vegetative
Sampling Protocol (Lee et al., 2008) such that at least 2 percent of the Site is encompassed in monitoring
plots.A total of fourteen fixed 100 square meter vegetation monitoring quadrants were established
within the project easement boundaries. All planted stems were marked with flagging tape and a
reference photograph was taken from the southwestern corner of each vegetation plot during
vegetation assessments. Annually, trees will be re-marked and plot photos will be taken along with
overview photographs of the Site. Species composition, vigor, height, density, and survival rates will be
evaluated by plot on an annual basis.The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and
controlled as necessary.
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in October 2021. Vegetation monitoring resulted in an
average stem density of 558 planted stems per acre across all vegetation plots,which is well above the
final success criteria of 260 stems per acre required at MY5.All fourteen vegetation plots individually
met the interim success criteria and stem densities for each plot range from 405 to 728 planted stems
per acre.The average number of stems per plot is 13 with an average of 7 different species in each plot.
Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment table, monitoring plan view maps,
vegetation plot and overview photographs. Appendix 3 contains vegetation plot criteria attainment
data, CVS vegetation plot metadata, and vegetation summary tables.
1.3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Problem areas with vegetative health will be noted (e.g. low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive
species, or encroachment).Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a
written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent
visual assessment.
Invasive species at Perry Hill have been greatly reduced by pre-construction treatments throughout the
existing forested areas.This included treatment of Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese
honeysuckle(Lonicera japonica) in November 2020. Additionally, scattered stems of tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altissima)were treated in October 2021. However, Wildlands recognizes that multiple
treatments are typically needed for effective invasive plant control. Sporadic areas of re-sprouting
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica)will be addressed in winter 2021/2022 using a combination of methods including
viri Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Buffer Report- Final 2

mechanical removal as well as foliar and cut stump applications.These areas will be monitored and
retreated as necessary.
During construction, Wildlands ran conduit through the project crossings to allow the landowner to
route waterlines at a later date without disturbing the stream. In October 2021, the landowner installed
the water lines without contacting Wildlands staff which resulted in ground disturbance and tree
mortality impacts to the easement outside of the internal crossings (see Figures 3-3b and Vegetation
Areas of Concern Photographs—Conservation Easement Encroachment in Appendix 2).The
encroachment area covers approximately 0.13 acres. Wildlands has discussed the impact with DMS staff
including the need to allow for future maintenance of the water lines. Wildlands is currently
investigating the proper methods to address the encroachment but most likely there will be some form
of documentation widening the internal crossing to encompass the impacted areas and allow for future
maintenance of the water lines while avoiding future easement encroachments.
1.4 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Vegetation across the Site is exceeding performance standards and is on track to achieve the final
requirement of 260 planted stems per acre. Monitoring Year 1 data shows an average density of 558
planted stems per acre across vegetation plots. Sporadic invasive vegetation was treated in MY1 and
follow up treatments are scheduled for winter 2021/2022.To build on the success of previous herbicide
ring sprays, additional ring sprays will be applied around the base of trees in areas of high competition
with herbaceous vegetation in spring 2022. Wildlands is investigating the proper methods to address the
easement encroachment.
Summary information/data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can
be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information,formerly found in these reports, can be found in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020)
available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are
available from DMS upon request.
Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Planted woody vegetation was monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed
by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of fourteen fixed, 100
square meter vegetation plots were established within the Site conservation easement area.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Buffer Report- Final 3

Section 3: REFERENCES
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program. Accessed at:
https://fi les.nc.gov/ncdeq/M itigation%20Services/Watershed_Pla n n i ng/Neuse_River_Basi n/FINAL%2
O R BR P%20 Neuse%202010_%2020111207%2000 RR ECTE D.pdf
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., &Wentworth,T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Version 4.2. Accessed at: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey. Accessed at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2017.
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline and Annual Monitoring Report Template version
2.0 Accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Guidance%
20and%20Template%20Documents/RB_NO_Base_Mon_Tem plate_2.0_2017_5.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2015. 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian
Buffers. Accessed at: http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20envi ro nmenta l%20qua 1 ity/chapter%2002%20-
%20envi ronmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0295.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011.
Surface Water Classifications. Accessed at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications#DWRPrimaryClassification
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2020). Perry Hill Mitigation Site—Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan. North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), Raleigh, NC.
viri Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Buffer Report- Final 4

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

4 I
_ Project Location z*
L_ _� Conservation Easement
I
•
Perry Hill Mitigation Site L-
F .
01i \ •' 2 J ;r
I # i, �, /
■
. • r
I
4
1.. tri 1
�� ...........
.f
a I k�
Fn or
�'� 3P
Q co, , Cf•
AI
$1,3},5 T5r'�,•Rrf 7
o
W
—
VI
rc
e-a o
I
��, C
E Lebanon Rd i Burke 1?-6
g Cr; F
a o a erg B.
� q ti n
IN
7 MCC * .r I i
j o W a a •F _ " oif Os Cr
0
4
ct
a- 04
a Gpoelius-5"-
.70'- Efland Air
jr0
�, n+Dr --, '
So Hillsborough S'
85 V�1Kir:g St "1,)<''
© Ben Johato0 Rat - _ -
_ .. u
fi T
Octoneec hee 9 —�
$57 Nab S�eArea �� !�S tirgti-7Y 70 E O c
Directions:
Traveling Weston 1-40W/1-85S 86
from Raleigh/Durham,follow 1-40W/1-85S 1N `-
to exit 161 for US-70 Connector N. Take r
a right at the bottom of the ramp and continue _-
onto US-70E (1.0 mile) via US-70 Connector N. -
Continue on US-70E (1.9 miles) before taking
a left onto Faucette Mill Rd. Continue (1.9 miles) o •^oe
and take a right onto Frank Perry Road. " .y -
a
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 0.5 1 Miles Perry Hill Mitigation Site ilillioilir
ENGINEERING 1 1 1 1 I DMS Project No. 100093
N Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Orange County, NC

1 j t
11,1: =1
3o
I RUchora `.�- -••--i
r.. : A.: I.—._—: County Boundary
tI 4I.7
1 I Service Area- Riparian Buffer Credits (HUC 03020201)
j i Service Area- Nutrient Offset Credits (Falls Lake Watershed) di
i
* Perry Hill Mitigation Site
I Upper j �".a=..-titi,;:
oa:a1sa Falls Lake + 1 I j •.r,
Watershed i I /Nir: u-•,•'.
It 1 /•
j _I,,:..m, I
!..I.f1 * + ! 5 Louisburg I
•I /
11,11 .. ,,II. Lq f
iut ?.— '.`�.
I i ..• C. .....
:.
< �„ Lower�•.�! '
j •!� Falls Lake •� �..
IIr1•'I" Watershed ..., rI
u i r' :\ j'
. I,.,I 11111 '•..�,.r
1 —
----.1 I _lllu _ - I•id;,n\
'd� .,s. Cary Ralei h knt,tnr:1.Ile Wen.I..{1.•� ....0'..*.
,y
Prtlsboro 6' . '
B Everefr Garner f� %�•�
LiceJorda \ e
Lane •1 `ll y,�' nu° +�
ftiF-` Holly take /or� -1,..
.prings - $en son
F ' ) Clayton Na .1
42
es
%• ..., •�,,� % v SGIt1,.,
s sI11 tt I1l 1•'I.I /,
?47H
/• Rama 3 n*..cF(.•,,,, i
,Iil I I Dock f -- -- I
-
%• 9ata Parl. /
Four Oaks %�-
%• * c
% Butes _ 4'
f• Lllltngton Creek Coat. �•
-1 I•I, •I, yyI.. .-.-1.�• 469a Erwin %
/ Walkerfown ;r /
rrr
%.kL LumL . •)
d- +�••... Shcsa
-wy, ••._•• h .- .
it j ':i ling Lake 4 I . �..�.—
Figure 2. Service Area Map
101%0 W I LD LA N D S 0 5 10 Miles Perry Hill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING l I I I I DMS Project No. 100093
N Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Orange County, NC

1111111
i.
aix `\ I ill
1 IA+ • t • /
\ k i , II
\� + 1 II / / i k
+ 1 - /
\. N \ x 1 0 51'
+ , x
• + �': \ I .� /
r
�4 �\ , Y- x w� \yam_ �%
` •
} T /T3
•
,r wN \\ ` \ + I i CP
` ' ,.
► / A
_
r Ii '
/I� i
�
i 4.
1.llh / L! �f - ; 1
+//
A- •j • r _ Project Location
k
+ � ,/ L_ _i Conservation Easement /
�� i' - \i+ Internal Crossing
4 ♦ - / '
�' i+ Project Features
ro . Perennial Project Stream
, .: ,,I.
; Q
\ / Intermittent Project Stream
�� ;� Ephemeral Project Channel
\ `. i // No Credit Project Channel
r Mitigation Approach
-• � % Buffer Restoration (0'-100')
* o Buffer Restoration (101'-200')
eir
•+4 • ..., Y - - i Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion (0'-100')
r . - ■ Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion (101'-200')
'�‘;i �' No Credit
►(AI'� ,, — Non-Project Stream
tt =tt Fence
C Existing Utility Easement
tExisting Treeline
2021 Aerial Photographxe
Ilk
Figure 3. Project Component/Asset Map
kiltW I L D L A N D S 0 200 400 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I DMS Project No. 100093
N Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Orange County, NC

Table 1.Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Neuse 03020201-Upper Falls Lake Project Area
19.16394 N Credit Conversion Ratio(ft2/pound)
297.54099 P Credit Conversion Ratio(ft5/pound)
Subject? Total
Min-Max Convertible Convertible to Delivered Delivered
(enter NO if (Creditable)Area Initial Credit Final Credit Riparian Buffer
Credit Type Location Feature Type Mitigation Activity Buffer Width Feature Name Total Area(ft') %Full Credit to Riparian Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient
ephemeral or (ft) of Buffer Ratio(x:l) Ratio(x:l) Buffer? Credits Offset? Offset:N(Ibs) Offset:P(Ibs)
ditch') Mitigation(ftz)
Buffer Rural Yes I/P Restoration 0-100 Perry Branch 408,293 408,293 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 408,293.000 Yes 21,305.269 1,372.224
Buffer Rural Yes I/P Restoration 101-200 Perry Branch 22,411 22,411 1 33% 3.03030 Yes 7,395.637 Yes 1,169.420 75.320
Buffer Rural Yes I/P Enhancement via 0-100 Perry Branch 157,953 157,953 2 100% 2.00000 Yes 78,976.500 No — —
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer Rural Yes I/P Enhancement via 101-200 Perry Branch 1,903 1,903 2 33% 6.06061 Yes 313.995 O1No — —
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer Rural Yes I/P Restoration 0-100 UT1 92,839 92,839 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 92,839.000 Yes 4,844.447 312.020
Buffer Rural Yes I/P Restoration 101-200 UT1 2,558 2,558 1 33% 3.03030 Yes 844.141 Yes 133.487 8.598
Buffer Rural No I/P Restoration 0-100 UT2 58,526 58,526 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 58,526.000 Yes 3,053.947 196.698
Buffer Rural No I/P Restoration 101-200 UT2 1,007 1,007 1 33% 3.03030 Yes 332.310 Yes 52.529 3.383
Buffer Rural No I/P Enhancement via 0-100 UT2 124,130 124,130 2 100% 2.00000 Yes 62,065.000 �No — —
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer Rural No I/P Enhancement via 101-200 UT2 24,834 24,834 2 33% 6.06061 Yes 4,097.607 No — —
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer Rural No I/P Enhancement via 0-100 UT3 37,195 37,195 2 100% 2.00000 Yes 18,597.500 No — —
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer Rural No I/P Enhancement via 101-200 UT3 24 24 2 33% 6.06061 Yes 3.960 No — —
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer Rural No Ephemeral Restoration 0-100 EC1 15,423 15,423 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 15,423.000 Yes 804.795 51.835
Buffer Rural No Ephemeral Restoration 101-200 EC1 0 0 1 33% Yes — Yes 0.000 0.000
Buffer Rural No Ephemeral Restoration 0-100 EC3 125,605 125,605 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 125,605.000 Yes 6,554.216 422.142
Buffer Rural No Ephemeral Restoration 101-200 EC3 3,872 3,872 1 33% 3.03030 Yes 1,277.761 Yes 202.050 13.014
Totals: 1,076,572 1,076,572
Enter Preservation Credits Below Eligible for Preservation(ft): 358,857
Total - -
Min-Max (Creditable)Area Initial Credit Final Credit Riparian
Credit Type Location Subject? Feature Type Mitigation Activity Buffer Width Feature Name Total Area(sf) %Full Credit
for Buffer Ratio(x:l) Ratio(x:l) Buffer Credits
(ft) Mitigation(ft')
Buffer Preservation —
Preservation Area Subtotal(ft): 0
Preservation as%Total Area of Buffer Mitigation: 0.0% TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION(TABM)
Ephemeral Reaches as%Total Area of Buffer Mitigation: 13.5% Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits
Restoration: 730,532 710,535.850
Enhancement: 346,039 164,054.562
Preservation: 0 0.000
Total Riparian Buffer: 1,076,572 874,590.412
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits
Nutrient Nitrogen: 0 0.000
last updated 01/17/2020 Offset: Phosphorus: 0.000

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Activity or Report IM 1111. Data Collecti. Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan July 2020 July 2020
Final Design-Construction Plans September 2020 September 2020
Invasive Vegetation Treatment November 2020
Construction January-March 2021 March 2021
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal March 2021 March 2021
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments' March 2021 March 2021
Soils ripped to a depth of 15-18 inches March-April 2021 April 2021
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments April 2021 April 2021
Competitive Vegetation Treatment2 April 2021
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) April 2021 May 2021
Invasive Vegetation Treatment October 2021
Easement Encroachment October 2021
Year 1 Monitoring October 2021 December 2021
Year 2 Monitoring 2022 December 2022
Year 3 Monitoring December 2023
Year 4 Monitoring December 2024
Year 5 Monitoring December 2025
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
'Herbicide ring sprays around the base of planted stems.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Designer 497 Bramson Ct,Suite 104
Geoff Smith,PE Mt.Pleasant,SC 29464
843.277.6221
Main Stream Earthwork,Inc.
Construction Contractor 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd
Reidsville,NC 27320
Bruton Natural Systems,Inc
Planting Contractor P.O.Box 1197
Fremont,NC 27830
Main Stream Earthwork,Inc.
Seeding Contractor 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd
Reidsville,NC 27320
Seed Mix Sources Green Resources
5204 Highgreen Court
Colfax,NC 27235
Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
Bare Roots 825 Maude Etter Rd
McMinnville,TN 37110
Live Stakes Bruton Natural Systems,Inc
Foggy Mountain Nursery
797 Helton Creek Rd
Lansing,NC 28643
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Monitoring,POC Jason Lorch
919.851.9986

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Perry Hill Mitigation Site
County Orange County
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 36°06'25.81"N,79°07'46.66"W
Project Area(acres) 26.88
Planted Acreage(acres of woody stems planted) 20.53
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin Neuse River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03020201030020
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-01
Project Drainiage Area(acres) 174
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
68%managed herbaceous cover/pasture,22%forested,5%shrub,3%
CGIA Land Use Classification
grassland/herbaceous,2%residential area,<1%impervious
Table 5.Adjacent Forested Areas Existing Tree and Shrub Species
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Wetland
Common Name Scientific Name Indicator
Status
American elm Ulmus americana FACW
American hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana FAC
Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana FACU
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW
Red Maple Acer rubrum FAC
Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata FACU
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata FACW
Sweet Gum Liquidambarstyraciflua FAC

Table 6. Planted Tree Species
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100093
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Common Name 1E_ Scientific Name Number %of Total
_ Planted
Bare Roots
American sycamore Platanus occidentalis 2,209 18.7%
River birch Betula nigra 1,869 15.8%
American persimmon Diospyros virginiana 1,141 9.6%
Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides 1,048 8.9%
Cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda 1,017 8.6%
Boxelder Acer negundo 960 8.1%
American elm Ulmus americana 559 4.7%
Northern red oak Quercus rubra 545 4.6%
Willow oak Quercus phellos 468 4.0%
Pawpaw Asimina triloba 468 4.0%
Southern sugar maple Acer floridanum 266 2.2%
Black gum Nyssa sylvatica 203 1.7%
White oak Quercus alba 203 1.7%
Winged elm U/mus alata 203 1.7%
Blackhaw viburnum Viburnum prunifolium 179 1.5%
Southern red oak Quercus falcata 102 0.9%
Sourwood Oxydendrym arboreum 102 0.9%
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata 96 0.8%
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 93 0.8%
Arrowwood viburnum Viburnum dentatum 31 0.3%
American beech Fagus grandifolia 25 0.2%
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida 20 0.2%
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 12 0.1%
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 10 0.1%
Live Stakes
Button bush Cephalanthus occidentalis 248
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 650
Silky willow Salix sericea 788
Black willow Salix nigra 123
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 263

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

` \, +
T - .
A \ n i
\� t. "I ` 113 i1 /
Q m� /
i `?' . . /
/1
+
ih \ i • O
4 ` A 'O. /
dr ek
\ 4� 4
j
I
O / j
// % I
e- / % /' .
// %, •
/
i
%\ I %, — Project Location
// ,p , i
//
� �� L'-_—._
• Conservation Easement,,' /
'i •• -
�' �j Internal Crossing�i
,'
A S 0 /I K VA Encroachment Area
`• I• ,/• r
` / ,• Project Features
'A 1' �� I.
- Perennial Project Stream
/• i
`N, � / � Intermittent Project Stream
✓ Ephemeral Project Channel
` ® ,i i // No Credit Project Channel
// / / +
' Q : Mitigation Approach
: / i/ f:,
" ' w-� Buffer Restoration (0'-100')
---_-_-.7_______ _ ligitiam__„ . ,. ,
Buffer Restoration (101' 200')
r.
- Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion (0'-100')
` Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion (101'-200')
No Credit
SLY,. . - t - Vegetation Plot
ti
Non-Project Stream
. iii u u Fence
e - Existing Utility Easement
•
e: / VOL
Figure 4. Monitoring Plan View Map
W I L D L A N D 5 0 200 400 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I I I I DMS Project No. 100093
N Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Orange County, NC

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acrea•e 20.53
Mapping
Vegetation Category IIV Definitions Threshold Combined %of Planted
Acreage Acreage
(ac)
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 0 0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
Low Stem Density Areas 0.10 0 0%
criteria.
Total 0 0%
Areas of Poor Growth Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance 0.10 0 0%
Rates Standard.
Cumulative Total 0.0 0%
Easement Acreage 26.88
Mapping Combined %of
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold I Easement
Acreage
(ac) Acreage
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage.Include species with the
Invasive Areas of Concern potential to directly outcompete native,young,woody stems in the short-term or 0.10 0 0%
community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point,line,or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists
Easement Encroachment of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common 2 Encroachments Noted
none
Areas encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no /0.13 ac
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

* Et{1 ' +
•
•
Z d'�
•
� x '
•
c ,,� 3r "i
-L •
� -Sti
VEG PLOT 2(10/20/2021).fi erg YI Nyf 202021J( / /G PLOT110VE
•
s�y_7 YF'�e''x a d
, , `
4n g r� I
VEG PLOT 3(10/20/2021) VEG PLOT 4(10/20/2021)
s
VEG PLOT 5(10/20/2021) VEG PLOT 6(10/20/2021)
1 Perry Hill Mitigation Site
�' Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

fti
i 1 t`q y �
�q' A
y i "-i,� N ' 'fie 6: nJ�y'
s
�y r
VEG PLOT 7(10/20/2021) VEG PLOT 8(10/20/2021)
N
WO
1 ,...1r, -
�Z i f
"v Zia
Q �
VEG PLOT 9(10/20/2021) VEG PLOT 10(10/20/2021)„401
, ,,,,.. ...,,, . .„....,,,, „.„,..„,,,... „:.,.. 4 s-.'.- --''' s-rr''"
at fs s
i' $° I ii,--7: • k".; .',.,',t', --,„-,`'',, ', „„:"*.. , -` '7,44 -.Llirg6...,.
.,...
i
@� ?>
r .
R r k� ••° t: '. PST v,I ait'-ST k,, ''�.• -la ',,4dcil,',- .! , r pn %�,
, _,,,... ,. .
--4
11- l'‘.'''''1%- i. ,' f 1.,.''f,'',':14 l'.''‘: Ille ' '- , — ' '' ','','"' '...'''.. , ?..- .''...t'4,4."L'. ' ', ''',,
VEG PLOT 11(10/20/2021) VEG PLOT 12(10/20/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
1411 Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

, ,.i'-.4 1 '-$'r ..,
v t ,., _emu g•
I
4 3 h 4',Vi.� A; Aar p 4.a
E�' r
jz � x�
c r $
io
s��fi��'�����asasn i�a" �"� '� �. as��� � ?r ��'� ��y J�
"FT �."P P1, r., tip . $ -
� 't "2 x� ti. mad x wtg a
F �+
VEG PLOT 13(10/20/2021) VEG PLOT 14(10/20/2021J
IZPerry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

OVERVIEW PHOTOGRAPHS

. a •- ear �:; , z '-�C�
-:$r� ----
kk
'+ SY'74 y' ?IF'
k +i $ J �l
•FS yy S
c,S
' iY
L
06,
a e
' ,,i tr ,r ec- .T R .F 1 Ji -
SRN
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Overview Photographs

•
•
•
•
▪ Perry Hill Mitigation Site
• Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Overview Photographs

T. t11.:,.41154,,t."' ,'41\4:40.,.,,:,:t.'-',.i;445.?1, t....41.., , , - .. _--' - - imir
y
4r,,
` "'E � 4 .
,c
h
F
a �. ..
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
141 Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Overview Photographs

s.
V
:r: �`' . 3 .." rS�S vim' `� .�y- tF' ,{.�
#� k "4P(i�`p 471
1` Wyy t,•` 'Tr Sl•y y, 1 _ .. - -
,ter,, - �,._;' i' In".: y:ie,"* ' ;' x'� '- !•". a- '�u)�e.
'�. - t •.gip....__ :__.:. � ,� :�J�
',c. 3 Y frd' d #3� F-,-$, k �Y��
. ' '-'• - . ..',-,;••• •••.'•••; :;.---'";•;••:-.!;'•'•'•-:-..r......,-.3:''''.•::-..;_:„.4,-.4;-..'''A-1.-•*,. ..''''•-•••:.•:-•;.,..4•.''-,;:-..-._.::;-.1 '''••:% .,i'
14
i f b .F
•
�_�; .
}
1..
•
04 Perry Hill Mitigation Site
W Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Overview Photographs

VEGETATION AREAS OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS
Conservation Easement Encroachment

ss
v 4 i'-'•'' ,. V r � 3 4 i 4--� . a sa �1 'ti,
6 \
4; ® ' n i -
a
hr. L,'� "� �Y •fie � R3 . `WRu �r
•
t J i ;er r
Perry Branch Reach 2—CE Encroachment(10/04/2021) Perry Branch Reach 2—CE Encroachm (10/04/2021)
- 1 y y :nLt
1.4
nA � �� .. -._
.` - F! , h �C �C `d
' '- ,ge`-"`'• , ti-`x ' • ��- � --� ;. �` - _ -
1.' i _,�_� 9YJJ
�{ -+ C� � `��� d c'+' � f � "'��'�r:�s����t�z 'fie
c. "-% litiii5 '`•-:::04,,724 , i IL.,;fs
fl
srri��". , K "TT oo�h�j�"�, , ;p�t .�"A'«i bra. ""ri ,�-y`� ' b- m 3 ;ti+r` '�"
�.i ' _ 1e�' .f o,rl` 1�i ;' �y. �� ,�� a� -> " '
.,•-.,,,,,,,„ -,,,,,-,,,,:4' ..-...',r.,",,. Ufa f
�{ ' .'. ..-
•
Perry Branch Reach 4—CE Encroachment (10/04/2021) Perry Branch Reach 4—CE Encroachment (10/04/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
1141 Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Areas of Concern Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100093
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Success Criteria Met* Tract Mea
1 Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 Yes
6 Yes
7 Yes 100%
8 Yes
9 Yes
10 Yes
11 Yes
12 Yes
13 Yes
14 Ye'
*Based on the target stem density for MY5 of 260 planted stems per acre.

Table 9. CVS Vegetation Tables-Metadata
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Report Prepared By Tasha King
Date Prepared 11/2/2021 8:31
Database Name Perry Hill_Stream Fixed VPs_MY1_cvs-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location F:\Monitoring\Perry Hill\MY1-2021\DMS Buffer
Computer Name CHARLOTTEINTERN
File Size 78249984
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata Description of database file,the report worksheets,and a summary of project(s)and project data.
Project Planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre,for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre,for each year. This includes live stakes,all planted stems,and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data(live stems,dead stems,missing,etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species(planted and natural volunteers combined)for each plot;dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 20190157
Project Name Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Description Riparian Buffer Mitigation for NCDMS
Sampled Plots 14

Table 10.Planted and Total Stem Counts
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Current Plot Data(MY12021)
VP1 VP2 VP3 VP4 VP5 VP6 VP7 VP8
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer floridanum Southern Sugar Maple Tree 1 1 1
Acernegundo Boxelder Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asimina triloba Common Pawpaw Shrub Tree 1 1 1
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3
Corn us amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Nyssasylvatica Black Gum Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 6 6 6 3 3 3 2 2 2
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Quercusalba White Oak Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Quercusphellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2
Ulmusalata Winged Elm Tree
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
Viburnum prunifolium Black Haw Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stem count 15 15 15 12 12 12 10 10 10 14 14 14 11 11 11 16 16 16 12 12 12 18 18 18
size fares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 9 9 9 8 8 8
Stems per ACRE 607 607 607 486 486 486 405 405 405 567 567 567 445 445 445 647 647 647 486 486 486 728 728 728
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS-Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all-All Planted Stems
T-All Woody Stems

Table 10.Planted and Total Stem Counts
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Current Plot Data(MY12021) Annual Means
VP 9 VP 10 VP 11 VP 12 VP 13 VP 14 MY1(2021) MYO(2021)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer floridanum Southern Sugar Maple Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2
Acernegundo Boxelder Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 18 18 18 20 20 20
Asimina triloba Common Pawpaw Shrub Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 9 9 9
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 34 34 34 35 35 35
Corn us amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 15 15 15 16 16 16
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 42 42 42 42 42
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 12 12 12 12 12 12
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 7 7 7 7 7 7
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 21 21 21 21 21 21
Quercusphellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7
Ulmusalata Winged Elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 13 13 13 14 14 14
Viburnum prunifolium Black Haw Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4
Stem count 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 14 14 14 15 15 15 193 193 193 201 201 201
size Ores) 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 14
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.35
Species count 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 6 6 6 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 17 17
Stems per ACRE 526 526 526 567 567 567 567 567 567 607 607 607 567 567 567 607 607 607 558 558 558 581 581 581
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS-Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all-All Planted Stems
T-All Woody Stems