20220550 Ver 1_Running Dog_100210_MY0_2023_20230707

ID#* 20220550 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 07/12/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 7/7/2023
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: * Email Address:
Kelly Phillips [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20220550 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Running Dog Buffer Mitigation Site
County: Union
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation As -Built Plans
File Upload: Running Dog_100210_MYO_2023.pdf 26.34MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Kelly Phillips
Signature: *
,�e% PhllPs

Baseline Monitoring (MYO)
Report
FINAL
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Union County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 210202-01
DMS ID No. 100210
DWR No. 2022-0550v1
Yadkin River Basin
Goose Creek Watershed
HUC 03040105
RFP #:16-20200302 (Issued 121112020)
Data Collection Period: March 2023 —June 2023
FINAL Submission Date: July 2023
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

WILDLANDS
EN CGI NEERINL
July 7th, 2023
Mr. Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
RE: FINAL: Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
Running Dog Mitigation Site, Union County
Goose Creek Watershed HUC 03040105
DMS Project ID No. 100210 / DWR No. 2022-0550v1
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 0 and As -Built Report (Task 4) for the Running Dog buffer mitigation site
that were received on June 29, 2023. The report has been updated to reflect those comments. The Final
Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO) is included. DMS' comments are listed below in bold. Wildlands'
responses to DMS' comments are noted in italics.
DMS' comment: Report Cover: List the dates of data collection.
Wildlands' response: The dates have been added.
DMS' comment: Title Page 2 (Prepared By) - Conformance Statement: Change Mitigation Plan to
Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report.
Wildlands' response: The statement has been updated.
DMS' comment: Section 1.0 Mitigation Project Summary: In the first paragraph please add language to
specify "within the Service Area" of the Goose Creek Watershed. Maintain reference to Figure 2 in the
following sentence.
Wildlands' response: The language has been added.
DMS' comment: 1.1 Project Goals: Update to better align with stated objectives in Table 1 of the
Approved Mitigation Plan and the table presented in this section. Modify the first sentence of the
second paragraph from "project will reduce sediment & nutrient loading...."; to state the project
addresses the site functional stressors with site objectives that should or are expected to "reduce
sediment and nutrient........". Direct monitoring and reporting of these metrics would be required to
support the assumptions as currently written.
Wildlands' response: The language as stated above has been modified.
DMS' comment: 3.0 Baseline Summary: Provide direct comparisons between the As -built site
conditions and the work proposed in the Approved Mitigation Plan (Section 6.0 - Mitigation Work
Plan). The Section provides a good description of completed work actions but needs to describe
overall adherence to the work proposed in the Mitigation Plan and should summarize all significant
deviations from the plan. Additional descriptions must be provided in the sub -sections as necessary to
detail deviations such as planting substitutions or specific changes to constructed stabilization
measures.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
Wildlands' response: Clarification of modifications made to the Mitigation Work Plan is included in
Section 3.0. Other than the substitution of alternative species, which is discussed in Section 3.2,
Wildlands adhered fully to Section 6.0 — Mitigation Work Plan of the approved Running Dog Mitigation
Plan and made no other modifications.
DMS' comment: Section 3.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities: Include discussion of shrub planting
that was completed in accordance with the mitigation plan.
Wildlands' response: A discussion of shrub planting was added in accordance with the mitigation plan.
Additionally, an extra column of "Forest Stata" categorization of the tree and shrub species was added to
Table 3 for further clarification.
DMS' comment: Section 4.1 Vegetation: Please reference trees and shrubs in the success criteria.
Wildlands' response: An additional reference to Table 3 with the trees and shrubs was included.
DMS' comment: 4.3 Visual Assessments: Add comprehensive visual inspection of the easement
boundary to this section as shown in Table 2 - Monitoring Components. All encroachments or
violations of the easement will be documented in the monitoring reports, included on the CCPV and
the DMS project manager will be notified as specified in Section 4.5.
Wildlands' response: The above language was added to Section 4.3.
DMS' comment: Figure 2: Add Goose Creek Watershed to the Service Area Map.
Wildlands' response: A Goose Creek Watershed layer was added to Figure 2.
DMS' comment: Table 3. Planted Tree Species: Spelling edit for black cherry.
Wildlands' response: The correction was made.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Ca f k-c�
Andrea S. Eckardt
Ecological Assessment Team Leader
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

PREPARED BY:
ON
W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
This Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report has been written in conformance with the requirements of the
following:
• 15A NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian
Buffers.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Andrea Eckardt, Project Manager
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal in Charge
Stephanie Erickson, Monitoring Lead
Dominic Dixon, Stewardship Lead

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Mitigation Project Summary....................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Goals................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Pre -construction Site Conditions.................................................................................................. 2
2.0
Determination of Credits.........................................................................................................3
3.0
Baseline Summary...................................................................................................................3
3.1 Parcel Preparation........................................................................................................................3
3.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities............................................................................................. 3
4.0
Annual Monitoring and Performance Criteria...........................................................................4
4.1 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Site Photographs...........................................................................................................................4
4.3 Visual Assessments.......................................................................................................................4
4.4 Annual Reporting Performance Criteria.......................................................................................4
4.5 Maintenance and Contingency Plans...........................................................................................4
5.0
References..............................................................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Service Area Map
Figure 3 Project Component Map
Figure 4 Monitoring Plan View Map
Table 1 Project Attributes
Table 2 Monitoring Components
Table 3 Planted Tree Species
Table 4 Project Areas and Assets
Appendix 2 DWR Correspondence
NC Division of Water Resources Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation Letter — April 29, 2022
Appendix 3 As -Built Survey
Appendix 4 Site Photographs
Appendix 5 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 6a-b Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vegetation Plot Photographs

1.0 Mitigation Project Summary
The Running Dog Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Union County approximately ten miles east of
Charlotte (Figure 1). The Site involves buffer restoration on three unnamed tributaries and three
ephemeral channels that flow to Goose Creek. The Site being submitted for buffer mitigation credit is
within the Service Area of the Goose Creek Watershed — Cataloging Unit 03040105 of the Yadkin River
Basin in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0295). See Figure 2
for the Service Area of the Site. The Site is expected to generate 644,736.100 riparian buffer credits,
which differs slightly from the expected 632,250.000 riparian buffer credits listed in the Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 2023). During as -built, Wildlands used survey files which depict a more accurate top of bank
and riparian buffer zone to calculate credits. Due to this increase in accuracy typically, there is a minor
deviation in riparian buffer credits from the mitigation plan to the as -built report.
The project is located within the Yadkin River Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105030020 and NCDWR
Subbasin 03-07-12 and is also within a Targeted Resource Area (TRA) for hydrology, water quality, and
habitat. Project streams flow approximately 1,000 feet to their confluence with Goose Creek, which
flows to the Rocky River. According to the 2012 Goose Creek and Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan —
Phase III (LWP), the Goose Creek watershed is "one of only three watersheds in North Carolina to still
support the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a federally and state endangered freshwater
mussel." According to the report, improving and protecting the health of the streams in the Goose Creek
watershed was identified as critical in the continued existence of the Carolina heelsplitter. The proposed
riparian buffer restoration project supports that goal of improved stream health by addressing the
primary watershed stressors outlined in the Goose Creek LWP: sediment and bacteria from agricultural
sources and increased peak flows and runoff volumes. The project also addresses nutrient inputs,
thermal pollution, and lack of riparian canopy.
1.1 Project Goals
The major goals of the riparian restoration project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Yadkin River Basin by creating a functional riparian corridor and restoring the
riparian area.
This buffer restoration project has addressed the site functional stressors with site objectives that are
expected to reduce sediment and nutrient loading, provide and improve terrestrial and in stream
habitats, and improve stream and bank stability. The area surrounding the streams was previously
agricultural fields, typically used to grow corn, soybeans, and wheat. The restored floodplain areas will
assist in filtering sediment during high rainfall events. The establishment of riparian areas will create
shading to minimize thermal heating. Finally, invasive vegetation will be treated within the project area
and the newly planted native vegetation will provide cover and food for wildlife. Specific enhancements
to water quality and ecological processes are outlined in the table below.
Running Dog Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
DMS ID No. 100210 Page 1 July 2023

Site Functional
Functional Uplift Potential
Site Goal
Site Objective
Stressors
Significant sources of sediment include
Reduce sediment input
Reduce sediment inputs
Water Quality:
eroding channels, streams, and adjacent
from adjacent
to waters of Goose
Sediment
agricultural fields. Sediment will be
agricultural fields.
Creek.
captured by deposition on restored
floodplain areas where native vegetation
will slow overland flow velocities.
Planted vegetation will help stabilize
streams and ephemeral channels.
Nutrient input will be decreased by
Reduce nutrient input
Reduce nutrient inputs
Water Quality:
filtering runoff from the agricultural
from adjacent
to waters of Goose
Nutrients
fields through restored native
agricultural fields.
Creek.
vegetation. The off -site nutrient input
will also be absorbed on -site by filtering
flood flows through restored floodplain
areas, where flood flows can disperse
through native vegetation.
These pollutants will be reduced by
Restrict the application
Reduce fecal
Water Quality:
converting cropland fertilized with
of animal waste in the
coliform inputs to
Fecal Coliform
chicken litter to forest and filtering
conservation easement
waters of Goose
runoff from the adjacent fields and
and reduce fecal
Creek.
poultry farm through the planted
coliform input from
vegetated buffers.
adjacent agricultural
fields.
Planted riparian trees will shade the
Decrease water
Improve water
Water Quality:
project features as they mature,
temperature and
quality of Goose
Other
reducing thermal pollution.
increase dissolved
Creek through a
(Temperature)
oxygen concentrations
reduction of thermal
in the Site streams.
pollution.
Diffuse flow will be maintained
Create diffuse -flow
Reduce erosion and
Hydrology:
throughout the conservation easement
discharge through the
filter nutrients into
Non -Diffuse
area where possible, thereby reducing
reforested riparian
waters of Goose
Flow
erosion and filtering of
area.
Creek through
nutrients into the project features.
diffuse flow.
The existing land use of the riparian
Riparian areas will
Convert agricultural
Habitat:
buffer of the project features is
be restored by
fields to forested
Lack of Riparian
agriculture. The project will include
planting native
riparian buffers along
Canopy
replanting of riparian zones with native
vegetation.
all Site streams and
vegetation.
ephemeral channels.
1.2 Pre -construction Site Conditions
Prior to construction, the mitigation site was primarily agricultural fields located on one parcel. The
project included the restoration of riparian areas along four unnamed tributaries and three ephemeral
channels: UT1, UT1A, UT2, UT2A and EC1-EC3 (Figure 3).
UT1 originates on the Site approximately 200 feet from the southern wood line and flows southwest
through agricultural fields towards Indian Trail -Fairview Road. UT1A flows into UT1 approximately 150
feet east of the northwestern property line and is located completely within the conservation easement
area. The section of ephemeral channel (EC1) upstream of UT1A also lies within the conservation
easement. A second ephemeral channel (EC2) drains into UT1 approximately 1,200 linear feet upstream
of UT1A. The third ephemeral channel (EC3) begins just north of the gas utility line shown in Figure 3
Running Dog Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
DMS ID No. 100210 Page 2 July 2023

and flows approximately 450 feet until it transitions to UT2. UT2 continues to flow north through the
agricultural fields to Brent Haigler Road. Other than some very small sections on the right bank of UT1
that have a thin row of mature trees, the entire project area has been cleared and used for agriculture.
Overview photos are shown in Appendix 4.
On March 22, 2022, NCDWR conducted on -site determinations to review features and land use within
the project boundary. The resulting NCDWR site viability letter and map from April 29, 2022 confirmed
the seven project features on -site are suitable for riparian buffer credit pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B
.0295. The Site Viability letter from NCDWR is in Appendix 2.
2.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits are presented in Table 4 and Figure 3 in Appendix 1 and are based upon the as -built
survey included in Appendix 3.
3.0 Baseline Summary
Wildlands restored high quality riparian areas along UT1, UT1A, UT2, UT2A, EC1, EC2, and EC3. The
project design ensured that no adverse impacts to existing riparian buffers occurred. Figure 3 illustrates
the credit zones for the Site. Other than the substitution of alternative species, discussed in Section 3.2,
Wildlands adhered fully to Section 6.0— Mitigation Work Plan of the approved Running Dog Mitigation
Plan (Wildlands, 2023) and made no other modifications. Detailed descriptions of the restoration activity
follow in Sections 3.1 through 3.4. Site photographs are included in Appendix 4.
3.1 Parcel Preparation
Prior to planting, the buffer restoration area was occupied by agricultural fields, mainly used to produce
corn or soybeans. Invasive treatments to control Japanese Honeysuckle and Chinese Privet in the
enhancement and preservation areas were completed. Small erosional rills along UT1 were graded and
seeded prior to planting. Live stakes and coir matting were also installed along small stretches of UT1 to
provide long term bank stabilization. Additionally, a regionally appropriate native seed mix was applied
throughout the Site to provide long term soil stabilization. The seed mix list can be found in the
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2023).
3.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
Riparian area restoration involved planting appropriate native tree and shrub species along the riparian
corridor. Trees and shrubs were not planted in the enhancement or preservation areas, only the
restoration area. Revegetation efforts will be coupled with controlling invasive species population as
deemed necessary. The species composition planted was selected based on the community type
(Schafale, 2012), observation of occurrence of species in riparian areas adjacent to the Site, best
professional judgement on species establishment, and anticipated site conditions in the early years
following project implementation. Based on availability, the proposed species Liriodenron tulipifera
(Tulip poplar), Celtis laevigata (Sugarberry), and Viburnum prunifolium (Smooth blackhaw) were
substituted with the following alternative proposed species from the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2023)
on the site: Ulmus Americana (American Elm), Sambucus canadensis (Elderberry), and Prunus serotina
(Black Cherry). See Table 3 in Appendix 1 for a list of tree and shrub species planted along with their
composition at planting. Trees and shrubs were planted at a density sufficient to meet the performance
standards outlined in Consolidated Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 stems per acre at the end of
five years. No one tree or shrub species planted was greater than 50% of the established stems. Planting
was completed on March 29, 2023.
Running Dog Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
DMS ID No. 100210 Page 3 July 2023

Vegetation management and herbicide applications will be implemented as needed during tree and
shrub establishment in restoration areas to prevent establishment of invasive species that could
compete with the planted native species.
Annual Monitoring and Performance Criteria
The performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the guidance
documents outlined in RFP 16-20200302 and the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B
.0295). Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the
finished project. The buffer restoration project has been assigned specific performance criteria
components for vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the five-year post -
construction monitoring. The project's performance criteria and monitoring components are outlined
below and included in Table 2 of Appendix 1. Monitoring component locations are depicted in Figure 4.
4.1 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian
corridor at the end of the required five-year monitoring period. See Table 3 in Appendix 1 for a list of
tree and shrub species planted along with their composition at planting. The extent of invasive species
coverage will also be monitored and treated as necessary throughout the required monitoring period.
Twelve vegetation monitoring plots were installed across the Site to measure the survival of the planted
stems (Figure 4). Vegetation monitoring will follow the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording
Vegetation (2008). Reference photographs of the vegetation plots will be taken during the annual
vegetation assessments. Planted stems will be flagged to aid in their identification in subsequent
monitoring years. Appendix 5 includes the baseline (MYO) vegetation plot photographs and the planted
and total stem counts.
4.2 Site Photographs
Photographs will be taken of the project area once a year to visually document stability for five years
following construction. A drone will be used to document the project's overall vegetative growth and
ground cover. Site photographs are shown in Appendix 4.
4.3 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above. Visual assessments will be performed within the Site on a semi-annual basis during the five-year
monitoring period. 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. All encroachments or
violations of the easement will be documented in the monitoring reports, included on the CCPV and the
DMS project manager will be notified as specified in Section 4.5. Problem areas will be re-evaluated
during each subsequent visual assessment.
4.4 Annual Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the DMS Riparian Buffer Baseline and Annual Monitoring Report Template version 2.0 (May 2017),
annual monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS.
The monitoring period will extend five years beyond completion of construction or until performance
criteria have been met. The annual deliverable schedule is outlined in Table 1 of Appendix 1.
4.5 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The site boundary was properly marked with the State of North Carolina Conservation Easement
placards every 100-200 feet (NCDMS, 2022) to reduce the likelihood of encroachment issues within the
Running Dog Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
DMS ID No. 100210 Page 4 July 2023

easement boundary. Adaptive management will be performed during the monitoring years to address
issues as necessary. If it is determined, during annual monitoring activities, that the Site's ability to meet
performance criteria is in jeopardy, Wildlands will notify the members of DMS/NCDWR and work with
them to develop contingency plans and remedial actions. Any actions implemented will be designed to
achieve the success criteria specified previously and will include a work schedule and updated
monitoring criteria (if applicable).
5.0 References
15A NCAC 02B .0295
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2017. Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer
Baseline & Annual monitoring Report Template (Version 2.0, 05-2017). Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2022. DMS Protection Mechanism Guidance and
Deliverables. Raleigh, NC. April 5, 2022.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), Tetra Tech, CCoG, 2012. Goose Creek and
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan. Retrieved from:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation/20Services/Watershed_Planning/Yadkin_River_Basin/Goose_
Crooked/Final_WAR_with%20Appendix_021413.pdf
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2023. Running Dog Mitigation Plan. DMS, Charlotte, NC. January 16, 2023.
q. Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 100210
Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
Page 5 July 2023

APPENDIX 1

W
m
yw
z \ 2
Q
lecklenburg
North Charlotte
0
T
arlotte 4!
Central Ave
ield 16 Memo
e Rv
16
�Iwyn Park
�a
p
O
.O
y
x
L
m
a
m
�
a
�
a
a`
u
1
-•.
a
Rq
r v�r
is Pine Ridge
o\a o�
d
�
ea
Grov e Park
�
�
ya
o
Cabarrus Rd
�
s
'm
V-a
/
Mint Hill
Xw,
218
514
/
4'v
�a
Matthews
ec� /
♦�`� Stalling
lb s Park/\�7ake
Indian Trail
o
oh 0e
m �+A
z
a
1601
a
I Un
ii
Directions: From the City of Charlotte, travel east on US-74
for approximately 4 miles. Take exit 246 for NC-27 E/
Albemarle Rd and continue for 2.5 miles, then turn right
onto Lawyers Rd. In approximately 4 miles, turn left onto
Nelson Rd. After 1 mile turn right onto Wilson Mint Hill Rd,
Wes and continue onto NC-218 E/Fairview Rd for 4 miles. At the
84 traffic circle, continue straight onto NC-218 for 2.5 miles.
Turn right onto Indian Trail Fairview Rd. The parcel will be
located on the left.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 1.5 3 Miles Running Dog Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I i i i I Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
Yadkin River Basin (03040105)
Union County, NC

VI // -?0Pine,Ridge>�
\ )\�
laPark \
i
Wil ove
Jlarlwood Acre
ntORiII
11
7
h'e w s / m
/ �Hemby Brid(
001,
/ \
a1ns�R t Ilings % Lake Park
/
IndJn�Trail
i,
R oP _ Stouts
e�
0
v Pioneer Mills
/
�1
/
/
/
WILDLANDS 0 1 2Miles
kv,
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I
County Boundary
0 HUC 03040105030020
Riparian Buffer Credits Service Area
Goose Creek Watershed
Running Dog Parcel Location
.Cabarrus /
Midland f
W /
r 601 /
p
u /
/ /
- Brief
Fairvi
Unionville
Figure 2. Service Area Map
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
Yadkin River Basin (03040105)
Union County, NC

O
'ILK
Bank Stabilization
via Coir Matting and a ��
Live Staking t�
♦� 9
Q Project Parcel
Conservation Easement
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (TOB-100')
Riparian Enhancement for Buffer Credit (TOB-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (TOB-100')
Project Intermittent Streams
Project Ephemeral Channels
Non -Project Streams
Non -Project Ephemeral Channels
Gas Line (Approximate Location)
Overhead Utility Lines
O Utility Poles
Bank Stabilization
via Coir Matting and
Live Staking
/ ► 89 '
�g ►
1
i
1
►
Bank Stabilization i
' i via Overland Flow
► Diffusion
i I
►
� I i
I i --
o_
u
r Z�_e
1� "
Figure 3. Project Component Map
% ZtTW
W I L D L A N D S 0 175 350 Feet Running Dog Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I i i i I Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
Yadkin River Basin (03040105)
Union County, NC

MEW
V I i
►� 1
13 .
1 ►
1
I
1
= Project Parcel
Conservation Easement
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (TOB-100')
Riparian Enhancement for Buffer Credit (TOB-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (TOB-100')
Project Intermittent Streams
Project Ephemeral Channels
Non -Project Streams
Non -Project Ephemeral Channels
Vegetation Plots
Photopoints
Brent Ha►g1er Rd
P P8
Figure 4. Monitoring Plan View Map
% ZtTW
W I L D L A N D S 0 175 350 Feet Running Dog Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G IIi_l Baseline Monitoring (MYO) Report
Yadkin River Basin (03040105)
Union County, NC

Table 1. Project Attributes
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
DMS Project No. 100210
Project Information
Project Name
Running Dog
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03040105030020
River Basin
Goose Creek Watershed — Yadkin River Basin
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.130655,-80.549511
Total Credits (BMU)
644,736.100
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
08655, 0368
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Plan Date
January 2023
As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Document
July 2023
Year 1 Monitoring Report Date
December 2023
Year 2 Monitoring Report Date
December 2024
Year 3 Monitoring Report Date
December 2025
Year 4 Monitoring Report Date
December 2026
Year 5 Monitoring Report Date
December 2027
Table 2. Monitoring Components
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
DMS Project No. 100210
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity
Frequency
Vegetation
CVS Level 2
12
Annual
Visual Assessment
Yes
Semi- Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation
Yes
Semi- Annual
Project Boundary
Yes
Semi- Annual
Reference Photographs
Site Photographs
8
Annual
Table 3. Planted Tree & Shrub Species
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
DMS Project No. 100210
Common Name
Scientific Name
Number Planted
Density
Forest Strata
River birch
Betula ni ra
1,427
15%
Canopy
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
1,427
15%
Canopy
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
1,427
15%
Canopy
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
1,237
13%
Canopy
American elm
Ulmus americana
1,142
12%
Cano
Boxelder
Acer ne undo
951
10%
Cano
EI
Persimmon
Dios ros vir iniana
951
10%
Cano
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
476
5%
Shrub
Black cherry
Prunus serotina
476
5%
Canopy
Live Stakes
Common Name
Scientific Name
Number Planted
Density
Forest Strata
Black Willow
Salix ni ra
50
20%
Canopy
Silk Willow
Salix laucosericea
100
40%
Shrub
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
100
40%
Shrub

'able 4. Project Areas and Assets
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
DMS Project No. 100210
Yadkin - Goose Creek
Project Area
N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
N/A
N/A
Credit Type
Location
Subject?
(enter NO if
ephemeral or
ditch)
Feature Type
Mitigation Activity
Min -Max
Buffer
Width (ft)
Feature Name
Total Area
Z
(ft)
Total (Creditable)
Area of Buffer
Z
Mitigation (ft)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)
%Full Credit
Final
Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Convertible
to Riparian
Buffer?
Riparian
Buffer Credits
Convertible
to Nutrient
Offset?
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: N
(Ibs)
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: P
(Ibs)
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
0-100
UT1
433,059
433,059
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
433,059.000
No
N/A
N/A
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Enhancement
0-100
UT1
9,109
9,109
2
100%
2.00000
Yes
4,554.500
No
N/A
N/A
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
0-100
UT2
133,825
133,825
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
133,825.000
No
N/A
N/A
Buffer
Rural
No
Ephemeral
Restoration
0-100
EC3
72,317
72,317
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
72,317.000
No
N/A
N/A
Totals (ft2):
Total Buffer (ft2):
Total Nutrient Offset (ft2):
648,310
648,310
643,755.500
648,310
648,310
0
N/A
Enter Preservation Credits Below
Total Ephemeral Area (ft2) for Credit: 72,317 72,317
Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ft): 164,529 11.0% Ephemeral Reaches as % TABM
Total Eligible for Preservation (ft2): 216,103 1.1% Preservation as % TABM
Min -Max
Total (Creditable)
Final
Credit Type
Location
Subject?
Feature Type
Mitigation Activity
Buffer
Feature Name
Total Area
Area for Buffer
Initial Credit
% Full Credit
Credit
Riparian
Width (ft)
(sf)
Z
Mitigation (ft)
Ratio (x:1)
Ratio (x:1)
Buffer Credits
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
N/A
0-100
UT1
9,806
9,806
10
100%
10.00000
980.600
Preservation Area Subtotals (ft): 9,806 9,806
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION
(TABM)
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Restoration:
566,884
566,884.000
Restoration -Ephemeral:
72,317
72,317.000
Enhancement:
9,109
4,554.500
Preservation:
9,806
980.600
Other Streams & Ephemeral Channels:
29,139
0.000
Total Riparian Buffer:
687,255
644,736.100
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Nutrient Offset:
Nitrogen:
0
0.000
Phosphorus:
0.000

APPENDIX 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 313367A1 F-3932-4EF3-AA14-54DAEOF3C89D
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHAM E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Apri129, 2022
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
(via electronic mail: [e-mail] )
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation — Running Dog Site
Near 35.130655,-80.549511 off Brent Haigler Rd in Indian River, NC
Goose Creek Watershed
Union County
Dear Ms. Eckardt,
On February 18, 2022, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a
request from you on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands) for a site visit near the above -
referenced site in the Goose Creek Watershed. The site visit was to determine the potential for
riparian buffer mitigation within a proposed conservation easement boundary, which is more
accurately depicted in the attached map labeled "Figure 1-Site Map" (Figure 1") prepared by
Wildlands. The proposed easement boundary in Figure 1, includes all riparian areas intended to be
proposed as part of the mitigation site. On March 22, 2022, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment
of the subject site. Staff with Wildlands were also present.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
and landward 200' from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(effective November 1, 2015).
Feature
Classification
onsite
1Subiect
Riparian Land uses
adjacent to Feature
Buffer
Credit
3Nutrient
Offset
4,5Mitigation Type Determination Win
to
riparian areas
Buffer
0( 200')
Viable
Viable at
Rule
2,273.02
lbs-N/acre
UT1
Stream
Yes
Primarily non -forested
2Yes
N/A
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
agricultural fields with
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
scattered areas of privet and
partially forested areas
Partially forested fields - Enhancement
along the channel. See
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Figure 1 for differentiation
between forested and
Forested areas - Preservation Site per
partially forested and where
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
privet removal is required.
Minor bank stabilization efforts and
Erosional rills and gullies
grading needed where bank stability is
observed in the riparian
compromised and where erosional rills,
areas
sink holes and gullies are observed.
D E Q �J North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
v 512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH C of Envi A a 919.707.9000
Daparlmem of Envlronmemal Duali�

DocuSign Envelope ID: 313367A1 F-3932-4EF3-AA14-54DAEOF3C89D
Running Dog Site
Wildlands
April 29, 2022
Feature
Classification
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
'Nutrient
4,'Mitigation Type Determination Win
onsite
adjacent to Feature
Credit
Offset
to
riparian areas
Buffer
0( 200')
Viable
Viable at
Rule
2,273.02
lbs-N/acre
UT1A
Stream
No
Non -forested agricultural
Yes
N/A
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
fields
.0295 (o)(3)
EC1
Ephemeral
No
Non -forested agricultural
'Yes
N/A
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
fields
.0295 (o)(7)
This feature is not within
the proposed project
boundary, but was assessed
per the request of
Wildlands
EC2
Ephemeral
No
Non -forested agricultural
'Yes
N/A
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
fields
.0295 (o)(7)
UT2
Stream
Yes
Non -forested agricultural
Yes
N/A
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
fields
.0295 (n)
UT2A
Stream
Yes
Non -forested agricultural
Yes
N/A
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
fields
.0295 (n)
EC3
Ephemeral
No
Non -forested agricultural
'Yes
N/A
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
fields
.0295 (o)(7)
'Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated February 18, 2022 (D)VR# not assigned) using the
1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by
the NRCS .
2The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
3NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment. Credits are calculated differently in the Jordan Lake Watershed. Phosphorus may be calculated separately.
'Determinations made for this Site are determined based on the proposal provided in maps and figures submitted with the request.
5 All features proposed for buffer mitigation or nutrient offset, must have a planted conservation easement established that includes the
tops of channel banks when being measured perpendicular and landward from the banks, even if no credit is viable within that riparian
area. Easement breaks that disconnect the continuity of riparian restoration/enhancement/preservation result in no credit viable beyond
the break.
'The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channels shall comprise no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7).
7The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all of 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6). Cattle
exclusion fencing is required to be installed around the mitigation area to get buffer credit under this part of the rule.
Determinations provided in the table above were made using a proposed easement boundary showing
proposed mitigation areas and features shown in Figure 1. The map representing the proposal for the
site is attached to this letter and initialed by Ms. Merritt on April 29, 2022. Substantial changes to
the proposed easement boundary as well as any site constraints identified in this letter, could affect
the Site's potential to generate buffer mitigation for credits.
Page 2 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 313367A1 F-3932-4EF3-AA14-54DAEOF3C89D
Running Dog Site
Wildlands
April 29, 2022
This letter does not constitute an approval of this Site to generate buffer and nutrient offset credits.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to
DWR for written approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or
surface waters for buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703, a proposal regarding a
proposed nutrient load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for
approval prior to any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0703.
This viability assessment will expire on April 29, 2024 or upon approval of a mitigation plan by
the DWR, whichever comes first. This letter should be provided in any nutrient offset, buffer,
stream or wetland mitigation plan for this Site.
Please contact Katie Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
PW/kym
Attachments: Figure 1: Site Map
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DocuSigned by:
888FFC85168F4E4...
for Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 3 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 313367A1 F-3932-4EF3-AA14-54DAEOF3C89D
t
= Forested (Preservation)
= Partially Forested (Enhancement)
y �Yaa
. ' = Privet Removal needed
70*
60' Easement
Break
60' Easement
Break
r. 70' 70'
60' Easement
✓Break
sr.
d`
r
.. 70'
Parcels
Project Location 1
16 1 M I w-
Proposed Conservation Easement -Proposal j
Intermittent Project Stream
1
Ephemeral Channel
Non -Project Stream
---- Gas Line (Approximate Location)
Topographic Contours (2')
Overhead Utility Line
Utility Pole
Figure 1 Site Map
W 1 L D L A N D S 0 200 400 Feet Running Dog Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I i i i I Yadkin River Basin (03040105)
Goose Creek Watershed
3/23/2022 Union County, NC

APPENDIX 3

VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
e
SITE
r
U14ION CO.".NC
I, ELISABETH G. TURNER, AS A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND
SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, CERTIFY THAT THIS BUFFER
MAP WAS DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD, THAT THE
EASEMENT BOUNDARY IS BASED ON PLAT BOOK SEE , PG NOTES RECORDED
IN WAYNE COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS OFFICE, AND THAT THE BUFFER AREAS
SHOWN ARE CALCULATED FROM AS -BUILT CONDITIONS EXCEPT WHERE
OTHERWISE NOTED HEREON. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE,
REGISTRATION NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS 26th DAY OF MAY, 2023.
\��I �FESS/0. 29
L SABETH G. TURNE , P.L.S. qL 4440 - SEAL
L-4440
%9 .O S U R
9
/////FTtq I ICI ��\\\•
GENERAL NOTES:
1. ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES IN U.S. SURVEY FEET
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
2. THE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS NCGS STATE PLANE NAD83(2011) DATUM.
3. THE AREA SHOWN HEREON WAS COMPUTED USING THE COORDINATE
COMPUTATION METHOD.
4. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO SHOW THE AS -BUILT AREAS FOR RIPARIAN
BUFFER CREDITS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THIS PLAT IS NOT A
BOUNDARY SURVEY. THE LAND PARCELS AND THEIR BOUNDARIES AFFECTED
BY THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ARE NOT CHANGED BY THIS PLAT.
5. LINES NOT SURVEYED ARE SHOWN AS A DASHED LINETYPE AND WERE TAKEN
FROM INFORMATION REFERENCED ON THE FACE OF THIS PLAT.
6. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAYS, AND/OR ENCUMBRANCES
THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROPERTY(S).
7. CONSERVATION EASEMENT MAP RECORDED IN PLAT CABINET R, FILE 119 IN
THE UNION COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS OFFICE.
8. STREAM TOP OF BANK LINES TAKEN FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY TURNER
LAND SURVEYING.
RUNNING DOG MITIGATION SITE
Riparian Buffer Credit:
SQ. FT.
Acres
Streams & Ephemeral
293139
0.669
Channels
Buffer Restoration
566,884
13.014
0'-100' (Min. 30')
Buffer Restoration -Ephemeral
72,317
1.66
0'-100' (Min. 30')
Buffer Enhancement
9,109
0.209
0'-100' (Min. 30')
Buffer Preservation
9,806
0.225
0-100' (Min. 30')
Total CE Area
687,255
15.78
THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORDATION, SALES, OR
CONVEYANCES AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH G.S. 47-30
MAPPING REQUIREMENTS.

NOTES:
1. SEE SHEET 1 FOR
BUFFER AREA SUMMARY
AND GENERAL NOTES.
Riparian Buffer Credit:
Streams & Ephemeral
Channels
Buffer Restoration
0'-100' (Min. 30')
Buffer Restoration -Ephemeral
0'-100' (Min. 30')
Buffer Enhancement
0'-100' (Min. 30')
Buffer Preservation
0-100' (Min. 30')
LINE LEGEND:
CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
— — —RIGHT—OF—WAY
—PROPERTY LINE
---------TOP OF BANK
—OP—"—OP—OVERHEAD POWER LINE
300' 0' 300' 600'
SCALE: 1 inch = 300 feet (11x17)
THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORDATION, SALES,
OR CONVEYANCES AND DOES NOT COMPLY
WITH G.S. 47-30 MAPPING REQUIREMENTS.
RUNNING DOG MITIGATION SITE
4
NCSR #1520
INDIAN TRAIL
FAIRVIEW RD.
� W
\OVERHEAD POWER MAY
BE SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN
i
�SR>rrrs �
S3•�� b
\ CF MASTER LIMITED
\ PARTNERSHIP, a NORTH 1 /
\ CAROLINA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CF MASTER LIMITED
\ D.B. 8362, PG. 159 PARTNERSHIP, a NORTH
\ TRACT 3 CAROLINA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
\ PID: 08225015 D.B. 8362, PG. 159
TRACT 3
PID: 08225015
N�F
\
KENNETH H.UDSO
\
/
D.B1
P.B. E.'G53
\
\
PID: 08225011 D
\
E SHANE E. WALLACE
6
D.B. 152, PG. 2
\
P.B. P. PG. 853
PID: 08225011A
\
\ \
NNUDSON,
\
JAMES E. SR.
k wifHODSON A C.
\ \
\
/
D PID880�225P.011
\ \
OVERHEAD POWER MAY
BE SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN
50' RIGHT-OF-WAY
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
D.B. 7102, PG. 189
CF MASN R LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a NORTH
CAROLINA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
D.B. 8362 PG. 159
TRA6T 3
PID: 08225015
/

APPENDIX 4

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

PP1— UTl LOOKING UPSTREAM (312912023) 1 PPl — UTl LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (312912023) 1
PP2 — UTl LOOKING UPSTREAM (312912023) 1 PP2 — UT1 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (312912023) 1
PP3— UT1 UPSTREAM (312912023) I PP3— UT1 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (312912023)
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 4: Site Photographs

PP4— UTl LOOKING UPSTREAM (312912023) 1 PP4— UTl LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (312912023) 1
PPS — UTl LOOKING UPSTREAM (312912023) 1 PP5 — UT1 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (312912023) 1
PP6 — EC3 LOOKING UPSTREAM (312912023) I PP6 — EC3 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (312912023)
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 4: Site Photographs

PP7 — UT2 LOOKING UPSTREAM (312912023) 1 PP7 — UT2 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (312912023) 1
PP8 — UT2 LOOKING UPSTREAM (312912023) 1 PP8 — UT2 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (312912023) 1
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 4: Site Photographs

APPENDIX 5

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Permanent Vegetation Plot
MYO Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean (MYO - 2023)
1
100%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y

Table 6a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
7edt�i*'c
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Boxelder Maple
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
River Birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1 4
4
4
3
3
3
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
1 1
1 1
1
2
2
2
1 1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
JAmerican Elm
ITree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Stem count
14
14
1 14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
8
8
1 8
9
1 9
9
8
8
8
8
Stems per ACRE
567
567
567
607
607
607
607
607
607
illl
607
flprlp,
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 8
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
1
1 1
1
1 2
1 2
2
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
JAmerican Elm
ITree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Stem count
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
1 17
1 17
15
15
15
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
9
1 9
9
8
8
8
9
9
9
7
7
7
Stems per ACRE
647
1 647
647
688
1 688
688
688
1 688
1 688
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: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 6b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Scientific Name
Current
Common Name
Permanent
Species Type
Vegetation Plot D.
Vegetation Plot 9
i i
Vegetation Plot 10 Vegetation Plot 11 Vegetation Plot 12
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1 2
2
2
2
2
2
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
JAmerican Elm
ITree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Stem count
15
15
1 15
16
16
16
16
16
16
14
14
14
size (ares)
1
1 1
1
1 1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
8
1 8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Stems per ACRE
607
607
607
allad
647
647
647
647
567
567
567
Scientific Name
Permanent Vegetation Plot Annual
Common Name
Mean . --A
Species Type MYO (2023)
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
17
17
17
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
27
27
27
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
19
19
19
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
29
29
29
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
12
1 12
1 12
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
23
23
23
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
24
24
24
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
11
11
11
Ulmus americana
JAmerican Elm
ITree
23
23
23
Stem count
185
185
185
size (ares)
12
size (ACRES)
0.30
Species count
9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
624
624
624
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 reauirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

VEG PLOT 1(312912023)
VEG PLOT 3 (312912023)
VEG PLOT 4 (312912023) 1
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 5: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs

VEG PLOT 7 (312912023) 1 VEG PLOT 8 (312912023) 1
VEG PLOT 9 (312912023)
VEG PLOT 10 (312912023)
VEG PLOT 12 (312912023)
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 5: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs