20150634 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2021_20220202

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20150634 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/02/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/2/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
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#:* 20150634 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: UT to Falls Lake Riparian Buffer&Nutrient
Offset Mitigation Project
County: Durham
Document Information
..........................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: UTFL_95389_MY5_2021.pdf 6.27MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*
efetedNefeqd 0:3i9

YEAR 5 ANNUAL MONITORINGFINAL REPORT
Year 6 Post Planting
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Project
Durham County, North Carolina
NC Division of Mitigation Services Project#:95389
Neuse River Basin
03020201
DWR#:2015-0634
•
4r
' .1117.:ar-,:''. '.<' Vr,'-':''''., 14"'4 '''' '4:-.1''. '. , ...- NA Op* W ,:,-„: -r .0 N.,, ,.",z.,,,. ° " #.;;6-.,„7,1,31Li."4'4
a '
.
" , , "4'11-'1'..:',4444. 771..744.-.`"1.4r445;tfr ,"'4'1%: 41'47.-ii.,47,,,t, ' -,-,--1., ",..', ----'
,e _ .1*
,�� h''-
iy
9 r+z tr �4 a 'x. x
� m % •. e, a z t t ''' ? 1 s
6 64 i a 5 t C��L. Y Vh j' srne`a � { '-'74 N n `--,..-
s`'e h
2.5 el$ F 4 'e • iya3 Y -
ifs ' Sa .� a_ - t
'
`La
1„a
Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Prepared for and by:
NC Department or Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
December 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Summary 1
2.0 Performance Standards 1
3.0 Monitoring Plan. 1
3.1 Reporting 1
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring 2
4.0 Maintenance &Contingency Plan 2
5.0 Year 3 Annual Monitoring 2
Appendices
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1 Project Components
Table 2 Project Activity&Reporting
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix B.Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Asset Map
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View
Site Photos
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Planted Tree Species

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) implemented the UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Project (Project) to fulfill
riparian buffer mitigation needs in the Neuse 03020201 Catalog Unit and nutrient offset mitigation needs in the Upper Falls
Lake Watershed in accordance with the NC Division of Water Resources(DWR)Temporary Buffer Mitigation Rule(15A NCAC
02B .0295)effective October 24, 2014.
This project site is located off Benny Ross Road in Durham County approximately 7.5 miles east of the City of Durham and is
within the Upper Falls Lake Watershed (Appendix B, Figure 1). The site is within the Lick Creek watershed (HU
3020201050030)which is comprised of sub-watersheds draining to Lick Creek, its tributary Rocky Branch, Laurel Creek,and
unnamed tributaries to Falls Lake. Falls Lake is a drinking water supply watershed with additional nutrient restrictions regulated
by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources. The site is in NC DWR's 03-04-01 sub-basin.
Riparian buffer mitigation activities occur along the Project from top of bank and extending out to 200 feet, resulting in a
maximum of 9.67 acres (421,385 ft2) of riparian buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation through planting and preservation of
10.86 acres of forested buffer easement along the main unnamed tributary to Falls Lake and several water conveyances that
flow to UT to Falls Lake. Refer to Appendix A, Table 1 for project mitigation components and Appendix B, Figure 2 for the
project component/asset map. Due to the site's location within the Upper Falls Lake Watershed, nutrient offset mitigation from
this site can only be provided to offset impacts from development within the Falls Lake Watershed. In addition, riparian buffer
mitigation from this site can be used to offset permitted impacts according to the Temporary Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295)
effective October 24, 2014.
The following goals of this riparian buffer/nutrient offset mitigation project are to address stressors identified in the Project
watershed through the restoration of riparian buffers along the UT and its conveyances.
• Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities
• Reducing sedimentation onsite and downstream
The success of these goals are based on the following objectives;
• Removal of horses and goats from riparian areas;
• Reducing the application of agricultural materials into and adjacent to streams;
• Establishing a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams to treat surface runoff,which may contain pollutants such as
sediment and/or agricultural pollutants from the adjacent landscape;
• Reducing bank erosion associated with a lack of vegetative cover; and
• Planting a diverse hardwood vegetative buffer adjacent to Site tributaries.
Project restoration activities were completed in March 2016. Refer to Appendix A,Tables 2,3 and 4 for detailed project activity,
reporting history, project contact information and project baseline information and attributes.
Directions to the Project from Raleigh: Take US 70 West/Glenwood Avenue toward Durham. Turn Right on NC 50
North/Creedmoor Road. Exit onto NC 98 West.Turn Right onto Southview Road and follow to T intersection. Turn Right onto
Baptist Road. Turn right onto Benny Ross Road Site. Travel approximately 0.3 mile to gate on the left. Access is by foot
through the gate and 50 ft. access easement See Appendix D,As-Built Sheets). Coordinates: 35.998142, -78.742794
2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Performance standards were established for native forest development and diffuse flow through the riparian buffer in
accordance with DWR's Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and
Maintenance of Riparian Buffers)(NCDWR 2014 Temporary Rule). Performance standards are dependent upon the density
and survival of characteristic forest species.After five years of monitoring, an average density of 260 woody stems per acre
must be surviving and diffuse flow maintained.
3.0 MONITORING PLAN
3.1 Reporting
Annual monitoring data will be reported following DMS's Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Annual Monitoring Report
Template(ver. 1.0)dated Feb.2, 2014.The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology and assist in decision
making regarding project close-out. The following table outlines monitoring requirements and parameters for this project.
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
1

Required Parameter Quantity Frequency Notes
Quantity and location of vegetation plots Vegetation will be monitored for a period of five years or until
Yes Vegetation will be determined by Division of Annual success criteria are met.During years 2,3 and 5 random plots will
Mitigation Services be used.Visual monitoring of the site will be done all five years
Project Locations of fence damage,vegetation damage,boundary
Yes boundary Annual encroachments,etc.will be mapped
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring
To monitor the vegetation at this site, the NC Division of Mitigation Services will use a combination of visual monitoring and
random vegetation plots.Visual monitoring will be conducted during all five years of monitoring to assess vegetative cover,
diffuse flow and easement integrity. DMS will monitor ten (10) rotating, random 1,500 square foot vegetation plots in years 2,
3, and 5 to assess vegetative success representative of the entire mitigation area from top of bank to 200 feet from each
tributary/conveyance. These ten (10) plots will provide coverage of 3%of the site each year used. In each sample plot,
monitoring parameters will include species composition and density.As it was done for the baseline data collection, the
vegetation plots will be randomly selected using a grid and random number generator or similar method for each of the
monitoring years 2, 3 and 5.Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species, diffuse flow and
easement integrity will be documented by photograph and site visits.
Monitoring of site restoration efforts will be performed for five years or until performance standards are met.The first annual
monitoring assessment(MY1)was completed in the fall of 2016. The vegetation will be monitored for a total of five years,
with the final monitoring activities concluding in 2021. The close-out for the Project will be conducted in 2022 given that the
performance criteria has been met.
4.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
DMS shall monitor the site and conduct a physical inspection of the site a minimum of once per year throughout the post-
construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components
and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following:
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out Remedial Measures
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure survival. Routine vegetation Any remedial activities performed will be
Vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting. The site documented in the annual monitoring reports.
will also be evaluated to ensure diffuse flow is still occurring.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between
the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by Any remedial activities performed will be
Site Boundary fence,marker,bollard,post,tree-blazing,or other means as allowed by site documented in the annual monitoring reports.
conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed,
damaged,or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
5.0 YEAR 5 MONITORING
Based on the results of Year 2 annual monitoring,and DMS's efforts to contract with a new planting contractor to replant the
Project and treat invasive vegetation, DMS did not conduct annual monitoring in 2018. The replanting of the site was
completed in late February 2019.A list of species planted during the replant of the site is provided in Appendix C. Invasive
treatments were last completed in August 2021. Species treated included Lespedeza.Additional treatment will be done as
needed.
Year 5 annual monitoring (MY5)was conducted in November 2021. MY5 monitoring activities included stem counts using
ten (10) rotating, random 1,200 square foot vegetation plots. Other monitoring activities included visual monitoring of the
project verifying the presence or absence of invasive species; checking the integrity of the easement and fencing; and taking
photographs at the established photo points.
Three(3)of the ten (10)transects met the success criteria of 260 stems per acre for planted stems. Four(4)of the plots
that did not meet the 260 stem/acre success criteria had 254 stems/acre. In addition, monitoring was not performed in 2018
so this was the 6th year of monitoring activities since planting the site, and one would expect the stems/acre to continue to
decrease as trees mature and outcompete other planted stems. With volunteer species counted (excluding Loblolly pine)
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
2

every veg transect except VT2 would meet the 260 stems/acre success criteria with densities ranging from 182 stems/acre
(VT2)to 835 stems/acre (VT8&VT9). The average across the site with volunteers minus Loblolly is 541 stems/acre.
Please see Appendix C for veg tables.
The fence installed along the easement boundary is functioning as intended and all installed signage is still in place.
DMS secured a new planting contractor,TerraVista Landscape Management(TerraVista),to treat invasive vegetation and
replant approximately 3.27 acres of low stem density area within the easement. TerraVista began the supplemental planting
on December 16,2020 and completed the work on January 4, 2021. To maximize survivability of stems in the poor site
soils,TerraVista dug 10" deep holes by hand with shovels and backfilled with 50/50 mix. Planted stems were at least 24" in
height and 0.5" in caliper size. Planted species included Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)and Sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). TerraVista was contracted to conduct independent, random vegetation transect monitoring to ensure survival
of at least 300 stems per acre in the supplemental planting zones. The results of TerraVista's 2021 monitoring are included
in Appendix C.
TerraVista collected random veg transect(ten 100m2 plots)data within the areas that were replanted in 2020/2021
(Appendix C). Results of the TerraVista transect data indicate that the replanted areas were well above the final success
criteria and averaged 996 planted stems/acre. However, the TerraVista data was collected in July of 2020 while the DMS
random veg transect data was collected four(4)months later in November. DMS data indicates far fewer stems/acre
indicating potentially high stem mortality between summer and late fall. Data collected in 2021 by TerraVista and DMS will
further clarify how the latest supplemental planting area is performing.
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
3

APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND TABLES
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
4

Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm) DMS Project#95389
Mitigation Components*
Riparian Nutrient Nutrient
Buffer Offset Offset
Existing Restored Creditable Mitigation Mitigation Credits Credits
Buffer Buffer Buffer Restortion Ratio Credits Nitrogen Phosphous
Project Component SF SF SF Level (X:1) (SF) (Ibs) (Ibs) Notes/Comments
Buffer
Riparian Buffer TOB-50'
Restored riparian buffer for buffer or Nutrient
(Reaches Al,A2&B) 0 49,393 49,393 R 1 49,393 OR 2,577.48 166.00
Offset credit
Subject Rural
Riparian Buffer 51-100'
Restored riparian buffer for buffer or Nutrient
(Reaches Al,A2&B) 0 82,083 82,083 R 1 82,083 OR 4,283.35 275.87
Offset credit
Subject Rural
Riparian Buffer 101-200'
Restored riparian buffer for Nutrient Offset
(Reaches Al,A2&B) 0 149,557 149,557 R 1 7,804.36 502.64
Subject Rural credit only
Riparian Buffer TOB-200' Restored riparian buffer for Nutrient Offset
0 72,392 72,392 R 1 3,777.65 243.30
Non-Subject Rural credit only
Riparian Buffer TOB-100'
Preserved Riparain Buffer for Buffer Credit
(Reaches A1,A2&B) 64,826 0 64,826 P 10 6,483
Subject Rural only
Preserved Riparian Buffer for Buffer Credit
Riparian Buffer 101-200' only.Area in This zone is less than 10%of
3,134 0 3,134 P 20 157 total Buffer Mitigation area.20:1 ratio=10:1
(Reach A2)Subject Rural
factoring in 50% reduction for preservation
on a Subject Non-Urban stream.
Totals 421,385 138,115 18,442.85 1,187.82
*All assets and credits generated in accordance withDWR Temporary Buffer Mitigation Rule(15A NCAC 02B.0295)effective October 24, 2014.
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Non-riparian Creditable
Welland Buffer Overall
Stream Riparian Welland Asset Category Credits
(linear (square Buffer' 138,115
Restoration Level feet) (acres) (acres) feet)
Non-
Riverine
Riverine Nutrient Offset Nitrogen
18,442.85
Restoration 353,425 (Ibs/ac/30 yr)
Enhancement Nutrient Offset
1,187.82
Enhancement I Phosphorus(lbs/ac/30 yr)
Enhancement II 1 Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B.0295(n)(1)
Creation (2014 Temporary Rule),buffer mitigation
credit used for buffer credit will not be
Preservation 67.960 used for nutrient offset credit
High Quality Pres
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
5

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)DMS Project#95389
Data
Collection Completion
Activity or Deliverable Complete or Delivery
Institution Date NA Jun-13
404 permit date NA NA
Restoration Plan Jul-15 Sep-15
Final Design—Construction Plans Jul-15 Sep-15
Construction NA Mar-16
Planting Mar-16 Mar-16
Mitigation Plan/As-built(Year 0 Monitoring—baseline) May-16 Jun-16
Year 1 Monitoring Oct-16 Oct-16
Year 2 Monitoring Oct-17 Oct-17
Invasive Treatment NA Oct-19
Site Replant NA Feb-19
Invasive Treatment NA Jun-19
Year 3 Monitoring Sep-19 Sep-19
Year 4 Monitoring Aug-20 Aug-20
Year 5 Monitoring
Table 3.Project Contacts Table
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)DMS Project#95389
Designer NC Division of Mitigation Services
217 W Jones Street,Raleigh,NC 27603
Jeff Schaffer,DMS [phone]
Construction Contractor Wright Contracting,LLC
PO Box 545,Siler City,NC 27344
Andrew Dimmette [phone]
Initial Planting Contractor Bruton Natural Systems,Inc.
PO Box 1197,Fremont,NC 27830
Charlie Bruton [phone]
Supplemental Planting& Terravista Landscape Management
Invasive Contractor 7213 Becky Cir.,Raleigh,NC 27615
Jennifer Barnhill [phone]
Monitoring Performers NC Division of Mitigation Services
217 W Jones Street,Raleigh,NC 27603
Jeremiah Dow,DMS [phone]
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
6

Table 4: Project Attributes Table
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)DMS Project#95389
Project Information
Project Name UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)
County Durham
Project Area(acres) 10.86
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 35.998142,-78.742794
Planted Acreage(Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 10.86
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
River Basin Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3020201 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03020201050030
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-01
Project Drainage Area(acres) 21.5
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <5%
CGIA Land Use Classification Majority Forested,some pasture
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 No
Water of the United States-Section 401 No
Endangered Species Act No
Historic Preservation Act No
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA or CAMA) No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No
Essential Fisheries Habitat No
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
7

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
8

FaWs
Lake Slat
Falls Rec leatron
L ake
ratzt
se
ter Project
e
4.
5
a
FAI: t illag a
• _. Wake ofes
ze e cost }{V!
••
Sauces:Esri,HERE.6eLorme,LISGS.Inter map, increment PCorp..WRCAN.Esri
Japan.Ie1ETI.Esri China ;Hong Kong).Esri ;Thailand?.FAaproylndia,
DpenStreetEAap contributors.and the C15 User Community
FIGURE I
Project Location Map .
UT TO FALLS LAKE (McDANIEL FARM
Durham County, NC 0 0.25 0.. 0.75 1
Mies
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
9

y.- •,-,.• ' ' •IA i
•
} ' i �M1 �i Y- .k irk •' �• alfr - -- ` f _ f:, ' '� iA
'-? % " ' ir4:7L . .pi:, st,„:...., tr, , 2_,',
ReaCal Al 11‘ AN,-__.'N'sir',--.E
r`. 7 a ,..1 '; ,i �' :4 \. -sr
A27: '
,i;11r....:11:_.
::
4gnt4" �e ":_mree:::•.: :Ix_.:,1;.
:::::***1:1
........ ' : ' r..:...4. ,,.:4;:::::...::.t......; .:J.1 . r .r., 7;4ft';. ,
..e �, '.:f.."q fV- t� .. '. ff�ffffff ~ �Plire '' ' 't ''' ' . r‘ -711111 ..- . 4111.1)4 It. .1 41 I*
w r Y: F } .
•
_ /f. f�fE
eir."06, ''' 6... .......:::. ....,:. .• .. .. : : . . / ... ir .... . ,,t, ,.,-..1
11#1 . ... . . : . : re_rer __ / - - GdPAi, #40*4r . '''.- - . ... ... : : •.—:—. .' ':. ... .' '... .'. '''' '' : .
•
. . , . , ,,,,,,r.
= .� , . .
-�" ' . ,A Ili '� }, r
•,=/' 7 4.. ..... .4. .4> i 1:///' AA44.4:er''Aa. .' flifji r -.."4,•,••• ••• . . • • ... . ,;: . r�}`
ff ff ff .J1 I' f �y.
. ... . . .
, . . .
? -...,-
... ,if A; .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .‘`Li. -
f ff/
Ir"� ��f� -fl� -�
NIP
,, ,,
• . ... .. .. .. . .
. ... st --424kr.. lit 4,7 4 ' r rNitlerfikrrt+trr '''. + . .% ' S. ..I. . ri •:. rr. . .,.:. ... ..': .
%
I IliI I i ll fJ
t
,
e
_Ixs #
Ti. 54 ' r.}+
to,
1.
Y /� 1 a .JtI.
,-.r...%; .1 . ,_ ':i..'... . , - --, .1/01"-rviik.."V,::: fl.i.,..
sz
�, � - . -. `fir �;,�. �'� .+, . ` !.�
•
- � � �' µel {ri r * ,R:f #' _ .-F
.41
.. / )
Figure 2: asset Map UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) ~- o. : .. :_
t r`
Easement (10.86 ac) •
61' 100' 8 083 sq ft} RB or NO ""' Reach B ry
? l`
Mowing Allowance 101' 200' 149 667 sq-ft) NO only ; . :" ; it
-
•
*' � !. {. •
•' �.:Y - - ._.a " .-1- t 'f 56 {y"��. r 71_T "i p-1
Ow 1� yl
J Bridle Path Preservation TOB - 100' (64,826 so-ft) RB only . + + w ;1.
il
Subject stream " ' Preservation > 100' 3,184 sq ft} RB only y
Non-Subject Stream Nutrient Offset Only2,392} sq-ft
r.. 880 LL
��� Pee
f Z
TOB0' 49,398 so-ft) RB or NO �:
Elf-'E n a111�p,.L. t=113=1 J41 =e�f� iil^lfinlffil3k 11 Jf1 f1J1 �,r t '1'1 14
UT to Fats Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
10

- _: . .•••• .. r li• 1,..j.. '4. . -- 1 ..? .. - : 'I' 'i . .• 1'....
'r
a .OH&
•
4 '1 • . "- .;. W . E
•• { , .t� ,
•-.'..•-. • •. ... k •_.. -.. 4'1b.,. li xi- 1 ? 1. . -i, - ..•. •
7 tiL
.i. • /- .-4.• 1..,'*',.. "-•:7 . : .. - -
- ii .'4 ' A 4...- r Aft\ 14
- . - '10' iett.ii,\:,:: C44., -. ' . 6 .. , •
•
_. , • tk, ._,,,,E6 . vi , 1. t ill'h
'# • ^• �• I'
'0):,:itic..:41 e"..,.. 7N, 1.1.: 'r..
r�r� rf 4 •1
iS r .' f�f/ r rr # d' tip' - / f 'r ,' - • - 57r
•
' - - .- i*. '14.44,',.i • .-_- • _ :., :M }-, = VT ,l , ' Rah
ore
:gyp ''.. • }: 4�'
•n
. ' . .. 4 ..%.r:. ... )
Figure 3: Current Condition Plan View - 114 • ti le 1 ''�1. f#'
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) - . r • '. ' *_# Isi,IIIa. - " ,= 'j_ ;4
•
Photo Points kF ' ' f#, + +. +- • yy. �• •
• i... # R�1.L : f `j' #
Supplernentat Plant Area 2020/2021 dormant . • '• - . y. ,' r
season (approx_3. mires) as .', +yy Ai. a
Mowing Allowance #y l } �'', 4. * p •
.11"k • �•. 4,of.14... . i x _r d
Bridle Paul ir. `' , ' t�[ � ` •
Subject channel 'IV 1 - ,;, t
•
Existing Mature Trees 'TAI iik _ }'*" ,
Non-Subject channel w:#,_•} 1i'mu n • A
_ Easement (1D.86 ac)
1Y Random Veg Transectsr� • '1 :7 i _ { i . ' . ill'
_ ' iaril
s.
Fails to meet requirements by more than 1 D96 4.14'
rr s` , k;'• } '7!"
• � ,Fails to meet fequirements by less than 10°l0 . F • ' •
i j.
•
. •‘..11,Aill.
r Exceeds requirements by 10 �Q ` 1 #.� • • ,, .r,, -
F
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
11

Site Photos
:fi'.1';f::-," '5' ,-,. "4.00:44,ito 1.1 k°'' '''' '7.'4CAr;--' 11,:;T:te::*...% 4'''',' ,,y.,4,:.;,:.°•-rfril 4,t0.1...., ,•,`;',. , ,„: •',_.•i,„,,,,
� y i � fF) . 1 'i a _ r � �, _l't a
Photo Point 1 Photo Point 1
# ,,..:
•
•
Photo Point 1 Photo Point 2
....,,,..:4-,,,I.,,e,y,,,,x,:_-,,--;.6.,,,,_;e „.,„,„,,,:.0;-,,,,i':.::::::t,0%,..-,,,,,47...,:ii.1.;';imA,.,..,44,-,tit,i4:‘,,v4::,,:::::::,-,:::::,-,:,,,,,
•
'' ° , "` 1„
Photo Point 2 Photo Point 3
{7Y c,x rq.,"-- q,
�` t e " 4s ash,`._- S 3 It ,
;h &..:.
1 r�
Photo Point 3 Photo Point 3
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
12

3.
T� $ SIE 'A 1�
—s , r. ,) tto x
ti
Photo Point 4 Photo Point 4
d'
Photo Point 5
Photo Point 4
. ` .`
e� Y
.. '" p . 'ti
4', ~ : '11k, l" : , I a n
Photo Point 5 Photo Point 5
Photo Point 6 Photo Point 6
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
13

eit.,.„„-,,I, 4 -' .1' - '-i',-,l'ai:.,,c,it, 4I,' ''. '..-4 :.'
Photo Point 6 Photo Point 7
} k '" -,C� Y•$.,�,. cs' p 'fir°.
tit - , .. ---
1
's ..„ - •x ,,� 'its@� --r ''''-r;..'op,--'
-' "r .*�'
" ; I ii
, >L. i.�?' , �5,"4 .'1 .i " �. "- '" h�• ice+ r —,:av+§ �,.€.�+1 ��'
Photo Point 7 Photo Point 7
4.4,7v.t.'ziforr-44,..,, ‘„3,i,, :_,,,,,,,oe ' ''",-'`"
4,'•',Xt,fil"5\'',;(!'''4-' •*.t'2L-*'1'4';let..'.04.AO..r,,, 1-,,,,,,,,„
'- d - ,ry tY W ,`meK 'f F a4�k -f?�. �1$;��,; 4 } -,„..,4.0..,!,.-. : , . L- -��. - 9 - .i'r
' � ' e :',Z,,L t F4 y, y as A _ � � ' `-,-rd ty�' t� u�,
•
, !i` Y Ai',- . . . v. iz - , v"6' a d yi A a,%'jr s ' '' *"- PPS ,'
c T1 -r .3` ,k ; Y ✓ •, tig gA i ti.-. G% �,yw t, t-,�.'•h i% 3§-
R
'�,zx,,' I'
.Alt,
: '� .� A.. ,s , a ''';.„ ,. .4• f x°:'•
.:s
1 F ii i' ,:441++5,71'.'J§x r=.. {6L Mi.t.� $.:a.,.� ._ •.�,��, ai'''ZLr^} Photo Point 8 Photo Point 8
:,P:t";
• *n'�s. s "S.,h per, iY -. r % `,,i e
F -
Photo Point 8 Photo Point 9
December 2021
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report
14

t ' .,'
x � N- tea- '"x ,�, "u" r�,e �'.�
Y
i '93 - 5• I r 1 P [�i S� x�. qq K ` ' aivy' �q i
a3 D "� t a �7 � `�-`'"��'
� �r '`s �' �� 3�'�� ti� �` " �" a¢ � ' x, e �F,,a: , i s��
Photo Point 9 Photo Point 9
.;*.ci.'..."!:: ', tr:.-.:-,I-. '`''''' .. .71,,t-;11''' '-.• "-.1 41,......7:.:''''''':
''-','''.''':44:':I:1-1
'!:,,.;::
..- t. , -zi l'.-.it,4...,_YIP'4!`•11;:, .4::. .,,-?4,-0, ,. .5c, -_ _,___,_„_
tea , ::::4:1
:1.:
:i7:1":
':t;
{ ry ,11� �,, . :'•,,. ' ,- . . , - __. „.„ .,,,,,..., ...,..„..,...:,1,:: _ 1,,,„,...„.. „ _. __
`' r r ti�'" :1414- 1:1::'5:117:,,,,''
' .!f �� ew • 4r
•
r /`Sf i ,d" ;,gyp.. i" :,:'
Photo Point 10 Photo Point 10
} ro
ay
Photo Point 10
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
15

Table 5:Vegetation Condition Assessment
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)DMS Project#95389
Planted Acreage 10.86
Mapping Number of Combined %of Planted
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold CCPV Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres Pattern and Color 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,4,or 5 stem count criteria. 0.1 acres Pattern and Color 4 2.01 18.5%
Total 4 0.00 0.0%
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year. 0.25 acres Pattern and Color 0 0.00 0.0%
Cumulative Total 4 2.01 18.5%
Easement Acreage 10.86
Mapping Number of Combined %of Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold CCPV Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
4.Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF Pattern and Color 0 0.00 0.0%
5.Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none Pattern and Color 0 0.00 0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the
understory, the channel acreage,crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 =The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the
table and is the result of encroachment,the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item(i.e.,item 1,2 or 3)as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below.
The list of high concern spcies are those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term(e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter)or affect the community
structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer(e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have
this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage,density or distribution
is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species
present, their coverage,distribution relative to native biomass,and the practicality of treatment. For example,even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes
discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the"watch list'designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed
across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a
projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing
invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature
can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
16

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
17

DMS MY5 Random Veg Transects
Table 6a:Planted Tree Species
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)DMS Project#95389
Number %of
Scientific Name Common Name Planted Total
Acer rubrum Red Maple 1,000 17.5%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 1,000 17.5%
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 1,000 17.5%
Betula nigra River birch 1,000 17.5%
Ulmus americana American Elm 1,000 17.5%
Hamamelis virginiana Witch hazel 700 12.3%
Total 5,700 100%
Table 6b:Supplemental Planted Tree Species(2018) Table 6c:Supplemental Planted Tree Species(Dec.2020)
Scientific Name Common Name Number %of Scientific Name Common Name %of
Liriodendron tulipefera Tulip poplar 700 15.6% Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 50.0%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 700 15.6% Diosypros virginiana Persimmon 50.0%
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 600 13.3%
Betula nigra River birch 600 13.3%
Diosypros virginiana Persimmon 600 13.3%
Nyssa sylvatica Black gum 600 13.3%
Cercis Canadensis Red bud 700 15.6%
Total 4,500 100.0%
Table 7:Planted and Total Stems-MY4
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)DMS Project#95389
Current Year(MY5) Annual Means
Vi1 Vi2 Vi3 Vi4 Vi5 Vi6 Viz Vi8 Vi9 Vi10 MY5(2021) MY4(2020) MY3(2019) MY2(2017) MY1(2016) MYO(2016)
Scientific Name Common Name Type P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 2 2 3 3 26 26
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 1 1 1 1 3 3 13 13 7 7 3 3 24 24
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 6 6 1 1 2 2 6 6 1 1 3 3 7 7 8 34 26 20 20 18 18 12 12 25 25 26 26
Betula nigra River birch Tree 13 13 5 5 24 24 32 32
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1 1 1 2 1 9 9 9 9 6 6 17 17 35 35
Hamamelis virginiana Witch hazel Tree 43 43 9 9 19 19 28 28
Liriodendron tulipefera Tulip poplar Tree
Diosypros virginiana Persimmon Tree 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 9 9 28 28 14 18
Nyssasylvatica Black gum Tree 5 5 1 1 6 6 2 2 1 1 9 9 24 24 47 47
Cercis Canadensis Red bud Tree
Pinustaeda Loblollypine Tree 4 25 26 4 3 18 16 25 27 22 170 217 165 81 46 29
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet gum Tree 1 2 6 2 3 8 16 18 12 2 70 36 62 85 64 38
Salixnigra Black Willow Tree 2
Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Tree 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 9 4 2 2 1
Quercusspp. Oak Tree 1 1 1
Unknown Tree 1 1 1 4 8 1
Stem count 8 14 2 30 7 40 7 13 7 13 7 33 4 39 4 48 16 57 8 24 70 311 107 366 110 343 41 214 91 213 171 239
Plot size(acres) 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.275 0.344 0.344 0.344 0.344 0.344
Species Count 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 4 4 6 2 4 3 7 2 5 2 5 1 2 5 9 5 10 6 9 6 11 6 12 6 9
Stems per ACRE 290 r 508 73 '1,089 254 r 1,452 254 r 472 254 ' 472 254 r 1,198 145 '1,416 145 r 1,742 581 r 2,069 290 r 871 254 r 1,129 311 1,064 319 996 119 621 264 618 581 1016
Type=Tree,Shrub,Livestake
P= Planted
T =Total
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%
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
18

TERRAVISTA
Landscape Management
Warranty Inspection Report
TerraVista Landscape Management, LLC
July 2, 2021
Transect 1 Transect 2
Species Existing New Species Existing New
Maple Maple 2
Sycamore 15 18 Sycamore 10 15
Willow Willow
Loblolly Pine 20 Loblolly Pine 29
Short Needle Pine 2 Short Needle Pine
Sweet Gum 2 Sweet Gum
Cedar 1 Cedar 3
Elm Elm 4
Persimmon 2 Persimmon 1
Transect 3 Transect 4
Species Existing New Species Existing New
Maple 4 Maple 1
Sycamore 3 8 Sycamore 10 11
Willow 1 Willow 1
Loblolly Pine 8 Loblolly Pine 24
Short Needle Pine Short Needle Pine 1
Sweet Gum Sweet Gum 1
Cedar 1 Cedar 2
Elm 2 Elm 1
Persimmon 2 Persimmon 1
919.791.7840 I www.Terra-Vista.com I Serving the Triangle

TERRAVISTA
Landscape Management
Warranty Inspection Report
TerraVista Landscape Management, LLC
July 2, 2021
Transect 5 Transect 6
Species Existing New Species Existing New
Maple Maple 5
Sycamore 3 9 Sycamore 8 10
Willow Willow
Loblolly Pine 2 Loblolly Pine 16
Short Needle Pine Short Needle Pine 4
Sweet Gum 2 Sweet Gum 6
Cedar 2 Cedar 3
Elm Elm 4
Persimmon 2 Persimmon 1
Transect 7 Transect 8
Species Existing New Species Existing New
Maple Maple 5
Sycamore 7 Sycamore 8 13
Willow Willow
Loblolly Pine 5 Loblolly Pine 23
Short Needle Pine Short Needle Pine 4
Sweet Gum Sweet Gum 3
Cedar Cedar 6
Elm 1 Elm 4
Persimmon 3 Persimmon 3 4
919.791.7840 I www.Terra-Vista.com I Serving the Triangle

.
TERRAVISTA
Landscape Management
Warranty Inspection report
TerraVista Landscape Management, LLC
July 2, 2021
Transect 9 Transect 10
Species Existing New Species Existing New
Maple 1 Maple
Sycamore 5 16 Sycamore 3 15
Willow Willow
Loblolly Pine 17 Loblolly Pine 9
Short Needle Pine 2 Short Needle Pine
Sweet Gum Sweet Gum
Cedar Cedar
Elm Elm 3
Persimmon 7 Persimmon 4
j s mon,oo.mnt a..an MignIna M.
R J E} I
Ayw yeM M.ctie.raK
F 17 t. dui,' t ;.1y;, 1-L..+ .rA„r, ,�WI L ','�
,'w his. t ; , -'�" �* _ �y
0NA'),..a `.y
itittlik•
.. '
NC DEQ Bid# 16-UTF-20200914
Supplemental Planting,Warranty & Invasive Mgmt for UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm)
—DMS #95389
07-19-2021
*All transects were approximately 100 sq meters. Stem p/acre density has been achieved and on
target according to RFP.
919.791.7840 I www.Terra-Vista.com I Serving the Triangle

WARRANTY INSPECTION REPORT-TerraVista Landscape Management,LLC
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)DMS Project#95389
Current Year(MY5) Annual Means
VT1 VT2 VT3 VT4 VT5 VT6 VT7 VT8 VT9 VT10 MY5(2021)
Scientific Name Common Name Type P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T
Acerrubrum Red Maple Tree 2 2 4 4 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 18 18
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree
Platanusoccidentalis Sycamore Tree 33 33 25 25 11 11 21 21 12 12 18 18 7 7 21 21 21 21 18 18 187 187
Betula nigra River birch Tree
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 4 4 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 4 4 3 3 19 19
Hamamelis virginiana Witch hazel Tree
Liriodendron tulipefera Tulip poplar Tree
Diosypros virginiana Persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 7 7 4 4 22 22
Nyssa sylvatica Black gum Tree
Cercis Canadensis Red bud Tree
Pinustaeda Loblollypine Tree 20 29 8 24 2 16 5 23 17 9 153
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet gum Tree 2 1 2 6 3 14
Salixnigra Black Willow Tree
Chamaecypansthyoides Atlantic White Cedar Tree 1 4 1 2 2 3 6 19
Quercus spp. Oak Tree
Unknown Tree 2 1 2 4 4 2 15
Stem count 34 59 32 65 19 29 24 53 14 20 28 57 11 16 30 66 29 48 25 34 246 447
Plot size(acres) 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.247
Species Count 2 6 4 6 4 7 4 8 2 5 4 8 3 4 3 7 3 5 3 4 4 8
Stems per ACRE 1,376 ir 2,388 1,295 ir 2,630 769 IP 1,174 971 IP 2,145 567 IP 809 1,133 IP 2,307 445 IP 647 1,214 ir 2,671 1,174 ir 1,942 1,012 ir 1,376 996 11,809
Type=Tree,Shrub,Livestake
P= Planted
T =Total
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%
UT to Falls Lake(McDaniel Farm)Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report December 2021
19