20201940 Ver 2_Rosewood DWR AsBuilt Walk Comment Response Letter_20230605

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
June 5, 2023

Katie Merritt
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620

RE: Rosewood As-Built Walk Through
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel (DWR # 2020-1940v2)
Wayne County, NC

Dear Ms. Merritt:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Water Resources (DWR) comments
dated May 17th, 2023 regarding the Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel As-Built Walk. The following letter
documents NCDWR feedback and Wildlands’ corresponding responses.

The DWR comments are listed below in bold, while Wildlands’ responses are noted in italics lettering.

1. About 30% of the vegetation plots were not aligned and many had extra rows that didn't
represent planted rows immediately outside of plots (2, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17, 20, 26, 27, 28). DWR
expects plots to be planted at the same time as the rest of the site to avoid having plots that
misrepresent site conditions. The observations onsite brought awareness to DWR staff that
plots may have been planted AFTER or BEFORE the rest of the site which can mis-represent
site conditions. Explain the method that Wildlands uses to establish fixed plots. Additionally,
DWR will require Wildlands to add 1 transect adjacent to the 10 noted fixed plots and include
that data with the Year 1 monitoring report. DWR will analyze the data submitted in the Year
1 report and provide further guidance to Wildlands if additional transects are needed for
future monitoring. Transects can be any shape, but must represent the same size (ft2) of the
fixed plots.
Our standard vegetation plot methodology is as follows:
• Vegetation plots are installed in proximity to the locations shown in the BPDP.
• Once trees are sourced from the nursery, the planting contractor then sorts them into
bundles. Bundle sizes vary by number to ensure that the correct percentages of species
are grouped together.
• Individual vegetation plots are typically too small to be able to include the exact
percentages of each species, so Wildlands supplies the contractor with the total number
of plots for each site or planting zone. They assume 18 trees maximum per plot. This
number is multiplied by the total number of plots and equals the total number of trees
that will be tagged and reserved to plant the vegetation plots.
• Tree tags are attached to these trees before they are bundled together, and the bundle is
then mixed thoroughly in the same way the bundles for the rest of the site are mixed.
• When the contractor begins planting a site, the crew lines up along the easement
boundary twelve feet apart and plants trees at the specified spacing, moving
perpendicular to the easement boundary. When a vegetation plot is encountered, the
crew continues moving through it making holes in the soil with a dibble bar at the

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
correct spacing for the row, but do not plant trees. Another crew member follows
behind and plants the vegetation plot with the tagged trees in the existing dibble bar
holes. While this method does give the exact percentages of species in the total
vegetation plot count, individual plots vary widely.

Wildlands establishes vegetation plots accordingly to ensure that plots accurately represent true
species composition and diversity across the site. Table 3 shows the average species composition
of all thirty-four fixed vegetation plots, as well as the proposed and planted composition
sitewide. Data in Table 3 further highlights the effectiveness of employing the method described
above, as average composition throughout the vegetation plots is nearly identical to the
proposed and planted composition sitewide. Additionally, tagging stems placed in vegetation
plots prior to planting aids in portraying accurate species diversity and composition in early
monitoring years when stems are more difficult to identify. Tagging stems placed in vegetation
plots from the beginning eliminates the need to make corrections in future monitoring years, as
well.

Per NCDWR’s request, Wildlands collected additional transects at the Rosewood Parcel on May
23rd, 2023 in the form of circular, 100 m2 plots adjacent to the fixed vegetation plots listed above
(2, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17, 20, 26, 27, 28) (see Figure 1). The total area of additional (supplemental) plots
is equivalent to the total area of the ten fixed plots in question. The results of the supplemental
vegetation plots are displayed in Table 1. The average species composition found within the
supplemental plots is displayed in Table 3. Average species composition of the supplemental
plots doesn’t portray the overall proposed and planted species composition to the same degree
as the already established vegetation plots, further emphasizing the importance of establishing
vegetation plots as described above.

Also attached are the results of the 34 originally established plots (Table 2). It is worth noting
that plots 9, 10, 12, 22, 29, 32, and 34 were not noted as misaligned with surrounding planted
rows, however they do contain 16-17 stems. This is a similar amount to the plots which were
noted as misaligned with the surrounding planting, which had stem counts ranging from 15-17.
This suggests that while the 10 fixed plots mentioned by NCDWR might have been misaligned,
they do not artificially increase stem density in comparison to other plots.

2. Pile of trees located within Easement. They do not have to be removed. However, a small
portion was not planted (see photo 6) and needs supplemental planting.
Wildlands will supplementally plant the southern corner of D6 this upcoming winter of
2023/2024.

3. Easement line was not straight onsite. Portions were on bank and also in middle of stream.
Explain why the easement boundaries onsite were not straight and consistent with the
easement line shown on figures in the BPDP. If these figures do not adequately depict the
easement lines, submit a correct figure showing those boundaries.
In areas where the conservation easement overlaps a project stream or ditch, the easement is
through the centerline of the feature, as displayed in Figure 1. Signage along UT to Charles
Branch and UT3 was placed in a way that aimed to limit flow disruption, resulting in some signs
placed in the channel, and some on the top of bank.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

4. Area (northeastern edge of UT2) was not adequately planted. Needs supplemental planting in
this section.
Wildlands will supplementally plant the northwestern corner of UT2 this upcoming winter of
2023/2024.

5. Extra row of trees need to be planted up to the easement line (along D5).
Wildlands will supplementally plant the area in reference along D5 this upcoming winter of
2023/2024.

6. Not many plants along this buffer (along UT3, between D4 and D5). Seemed the planting crew
stopped at a sandy row near top of bank.
Wildlands will supplementally plant where necessary along UT3 this upcoming winter of
2023/2024.

7. Easement line seemed to not include portion of UT3. Wildlands is required to have the stream
top of bank (or centerline) in the easement. Explain if this has been secured.
The conservation easement boundary in reference runs along the centerline of UT3, as displayed
in Figure 1.

Sincerely,

Kaitlyn Hogarth, Environmental Scientist
Attachments:
Figure 1. Supplemental Vegetation Plots Map
Table 1. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Supplemental Vegetation Plot
Table 2. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegetation Plot
Table 3. Species Composition by Vegetation Plot
Supplemental Vegetation Plot Photographs
Bruton Natural Systems Planted Quantities Document

Figure 1. Supplemental Vegetation Plots Map
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC
2017 Aerial Photography
D2
D4
U
T

t
o

C
h
a
r
l
e
s

B
r
a
n
c
h
UT1
D1
D3
UT3
UT2
D5
D64
5
20
19
13
14 3
2
18
16
17
15
6
7
8 28
26
27
24
22
21
1
23
25
9
10
30
29
11
12
34
32
31
33
8
10
9
2
3
1
4
5
6
7
R
a
b
T
r
l
B r a s w e l l R d
581
581
Muriel Hooks Dr
Trappers Wood D r
Rab Trl
Glenwood Dr
Connies
Cir
NC
581
Hwy
S
Br as we l l R d
N
C
5
8
1
H
w
y
S
Project Location
Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
Project Stream
Project Ditch
Non-Project Ditch
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credits
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset
Credits
Not for Credit
Fixed Vegetation Plot
Supplemental Vegetation Plot
Existing Utility Easement
Existing Utility Line
0 175 350 Feet ¹
2019 Aerial Photography
Table 1. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Supplemental Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 5
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 6 6 6 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia Shrub Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 5 5 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree 2 2 2
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Quercus spp.*Oak species Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
14 14 14 13 13 13 15 15 15 12 12 12 14 14 14
7 7 7 5 5 5 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5
567 567 567 526 526 526 607 607 607 486 486 486 567 567 567
*Qeurcus spp: falcata, nigra, or pagoda
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
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
SVP 1 SVP 2
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
1
SVP 3
0.02
Current Plot Data (MY0 2023)
SVP 4 SVP 5
Table 1. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Supplemental Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia Shrub Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree
Quercus spp.*Oak species Tree
*Qeurcus spp: falcata, nigra, or pagoda
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
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 22 22 22
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 23 23 23
2 2 2 7 7 7
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 8
4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 26 26 26
2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5
3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 13 13
2 2 2 4 4 4 8 8 8 3 3 3 4 4 4 30 30 30
13 13 13 15 15 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 134 134 134
6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 10 10
526 526 526 607 607 607 526 526 526 526 526 526 486 486 486 670 670 670
MY0 (2023)
1
0.02
10
0.200.020.02
Annual MeansCurrent Plot Data (MY0 2023)
SVP 7
1
0.02
SVP 8
1
0.02
SVP 10
1
SVP 6 SVP 9
1
Table 2. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
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 negundo Boxelder Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia Shrub Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4
14 14 14 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 15 15 15
7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 8 8 8 7 7 7
567 567 567 647 647 647 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 647 647 647 607 607 607
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
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5 VP 6
Current Plot Data (MY0 2023)
VP 7
Table 2. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia Shrub Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree
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
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
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
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2
2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16
9 9 9 8 8 8 10 10 10 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 7 7 7
647 647 647 647 647 647 647 647 647 607 607 607 647 647 647 607 607 607 607 607 607 647 647 647
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
VP 13 VP 14 VP 15VP 8 VP 9 VP 10 VP 11 VP 12
Current Plot Data (MY0 2023)
Table 2. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia Shrub Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree
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
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
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
2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4
14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 15 15 15
8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8
567 567 567 607 607 607 647 647 647 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 647 647 647 607 607 607
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
VP 19 VP 20 VP 21 VP 22 VP 23VP 16 VP 17 VP 18
Current Plot Data (MY0 2023)
Table 2. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia Shrub Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree
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
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
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
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4
3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
15 15 15 15 15 15 17 17 17 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 15 15 15
8 8 8 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 8 8 8
607 607 607 607 607 607 688 688 688 607 607 607 607 607 607 647 647 647 607 607 607
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
VP 25 VP 26 VP 27 VP 28 VP 29 VP 30VP 24
Current Plot Data (MY0 2023)
Table 2. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia Shrub Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree
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
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
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
1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 51 51 51
2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 73 73 73
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 53 53 53
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 22 22
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 74 74 74
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 57 57 57
3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 51 51 51
1 1 1 1 1 1 25 25 25
3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 53 53 53
1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 49 49 49
15 15 15 17 17 17 14 14 14 17 17 17 508 508 508
9 9 9 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10
607 607 607 688 688 688 567 567 567 688 688 688 623 623 623
33
0.82
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
VP 31 VP 32 VP 33 VP 34
Annual Means
MY0 (2023)
Current Plot Data (MY0 2023)
Table 3. Species Composition by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Scientific Name Common Name VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5 VP 6 VP 7 VP 8
Acer negundo Boxelder 14% 19% 7% 7% 7% 13% 13% 6%
Betula nigra River Birch 14%13%7%20%7%19%20%19%
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon 14%6%7%13%13%13%13%13%
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 0%0%13%0%7%0%7%0%
Platanus occidentalus Sycamore 7%19%27%13%7%6%27%13%
Populus deltoides Cottonwood 14%13%7%20%13%13%13%6%
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 21%0%0%13%13%6%7%13%
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak 14%6%0%0%7%0%0%13%
Quercus nigra Water Oak 0%13%27%7%13%6%0%6%
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak 0%13%7%7%13%25%0%13%
*Average percentage of Quercus falcata, nigra, and pagoda combined
due to an inability to differentiate untagged oaks at MY0
Table 3. Species Composition by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Scientific Name Common Name
Acer negundo Boxelder
Betula nigra River Birch
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia
Platanus occidentalus Sycamore
Populus deltoides Cottonwood
Prunus serotina Black Cherry
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak
*Average percentage of Quercus falcata, nigra, and pagoda combined
due to an inability to differentiate untagged oaks at MY0
VP 9 VP 10 VP 11 VP 12 VP 13 VP 14 VP 15 VP 16
13% 13% 13% 6% 13% 7% 13% 0%
13%19%13%6%13%20%13%7%
19%6%7%13%20%7%13%21%
0%6%0%6%7%7%0%0%
6%13%13%13%7%7%25%14%
13%13%13%13%7%13%19%7%
13%13%13%6%7%13%0%29%
0%6%0%6%7%0%6%7%
13%6%13%6%7%13%13%7%
13%6%13%25%13%13%0%7%
Table 3. Species Composition by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Scientific Name Common Name
Acer negundo Boxelder
Betula nigra River Birch
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia
Platanus occidentalus Sycamore
Populus deltoides Cottonwood
Prunus serotina Black Cherry
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak
*Average percentage of Quercus falcata, nigra, and pagoda combined
due to an inability to differentiate untagged oaks at MY0
VP 17 VP 18 VP 19 VP 20 VP 21 VP 22 VP 23 VP 24
13% 13% 7% 7% 13% 6% 14% 14%
7%25%20%14%13%17%21%14%
20%6%0%14%7%6%7%7%
7%6%7%7%7%0%7%7%
7%6%20%21%27%17%14%21%
7%6%13%7%7%11%7%21%
13%13%7%14%13%6%14%7%
7%6%7%7%7%0%0%0%
7%6%13%7%7%17%14%7%
13%13%7%0%0%22%0%0%
Table 3. Species Composition by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Scientific Name Common Name
Acer negundo Boxelder
Betula nigra River Birch
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia
Platanus occidentalus Sycamore
Populus deltoides Cottonwood
Prunus serotina Black Cherry
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak
*Average percentage of Quercus falcata, nigra, and pagoda combined
due to an inability to differentiate untagged oaks at MY0
VP 25 VP 26 VP 27 VP 28 VP 29 VP 30 VP 31 VP 32
6% 6% 20% 13% 13% 0% 6% 19%
12%13%13%13%19%7%13%19%
6%13%13%0%19%7%6%6%
6%6%0%7%6%0%6%6%
18%13%13%0%13%27%13%13%
6%13%13%13%6%13%6%13%
12%13%0%13%6%7%19%6%
6%0%7%13%0%20%0%6%
18%13%13%13%13%13%19%6%
12%1%7%13%6%7%13%6%
Table 3. Species Composition by Vegetation Plot
Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Scientific Name Common Name
Acer negundo Boxelder
Betula nigra River Birch
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia
Platanus occidentalus Sycamore
Populus deltoides Cottonwood
Prunus serotina Black Cherry
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak
*Average percentage of Quercus falcata, nigra, and pagoda combined
due to an inability to differentiate untagged oaks at MY0
VP 33 VP 34
VP Average
Composition
Proposed
Composition
Planted
Composition
SVP Average
Compostion
7% 6% 10% 10% 10% 16%
14%18%14%15%15%18%
14%6%10%10%10%5%
7%6%4%5%5%6%
21%18%15%15%15%19%
0%18%11%10%10%4%
7%12%10%10%10%9%
7%0%5%5%5%23%*
14%12%11%10%10%
7%6%9%10%10%

SUPPLEMENTAL VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Supplemental Vegetation Plot Photographs

SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 1 (5/23/23) SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 2 (5/23/23)

SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 3 (5/23/23) SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 4 (5/23/23)

SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 5 (5/23/23) SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 6 (5/23/23)

Rosewood Mitigation Bank Parcel
Supplemental Vegetation Plot Photographs

SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 7 (5/23/23) SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 8 (5/23/23)

SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 9 (5/23/23) SUPPLEMENTAL VEG PLOT 10 (5/23/23)

Bruton Natural Systems Planted Quantities Document
Bruton Natural Systems Planted Quantities Document

Project !Name: Rosewood
Project Location: Goldsboro, NC
rule—
tt
/i PivSa J'�
-- S�skcma
Common Name I Scientific Name
Qty Installed
Buffer Planting - Bare Root
Black Cherry
Prunus serot;na
2178
Boxelder
Asernegundv
2178
Cherrybark Oak
QuercusPa_coda
2178
Cottonwood
Populus dettoides
2178
Persimmon
Diosrryros virginiono
2178
River Birch
betluo nigra
3267
Sweetbay
Mognolia virciniana
1089
Sycamore
Platonus occidentafis
3267
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
2178
Southern Red Oak
Quercus fcicatc
1089
Live Stakes
Silky Willow
Solixsencea
250
Black Willow
Salix nigro
150
Silky Dogwood
Eornus amomum
100
Daniel, We also installed a small mixture (as you requested) of Buttonbush, With Hazel, and Elderberry
in the "shrub zone". Not sure of the total quantities on there so i did not want to include there with
unverifiable information. Was probably around 100 sterns or so of that mixture, likely even mix of the 3.