RES_20181097v2_Dogtown Bank Parcel As Built Report_8.2023

ID#* 20181097 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:
Blake Hartshorn
Initial Review Completed Date 08/18/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 8/17/2023
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:
Daniel Dixon [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20181097 Version:* 2
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank
County: Catawba
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation As -Built Plans
File Upload: RES_20181097v2_Dogtown Bank Parcel As Built
21.17MB
Report _8.2023.pdf
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
................................................... ......... ......... ...... ................................ .............................................
Print Name:* Daniel Dixon
Signature: *
eta e7Wz1;110Kt'A_ V

Bank Parcel Development Plan As -Built Report
Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank
DWR Project # 2018-1097v2
Catawba County, North Carolina
Catawba River Watershed
HUC 03050101
Prepared By:
fires
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc and Exchange (EBX)
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
August 2023

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Success Criteria............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Project Components.................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Riparian Restoration Approach................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Construction and As -Built Conditions...................................................................................... 3
1.6 Baseline Monitoring Performance............................................................................................. 3
2.0 Methods.................................................................................................................................................. 3
3.0 Reference................................................................................................................................................ 4
Appendix A: Site Maps
Table 1: Dogtown Project Credits
Figure 1: Site Map
Figure 2A: Current Conditions Plan View (Dogtown North)
Figure 2B: Current Conditions Plan View (Dogtown South)
Figure 3: As -Built Plat
Appendix B: Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 2a: Planted Species Summary
Table 2b: Planted Seed Mix Summary
Table 3: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 4: Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix C: Proiect Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Stream Construction and Easement Photos
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Appendix E: Adaptive Management Plan
Attachments
Figure 1 a — Adaptive Management Problem Areas (Dogtown North)
Figure lb — Adaptive Management Problem Areas (Dogtown North)
Problem Area Photos
Proposed Tree Species Summary
i

1.0 Proiect Summary
LI Project Location and Description
Environmental Banc & Exchange (EBX) is pleased to provide this Bank Parcel Monitoring Report for the
Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank ("Project"). This Parcel is designed to provide Riparian Buffer
credits for unavoidable impacts to riparian buffers along the Catawba mainstem below Lake James and
along the mainstem lakes from and including Lake James to the NC & SC border in the Catawba River
Basin per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (1)(1). The Bank Parcel is located within the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 8-digit HUC 03050101. This Project is in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer
Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, made and entered into by EBX acting as the Bank Sponsor
(Sponsor), and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality -Division of Water Resources
(DWR). Supporting figures can be found in Appendix A. The Project has also been designed and
constructed in concurrence with the Dogtown Stream Mitigation Site (SAW# 2017-00608).
The Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank (Project) is located within Catawba County, approximately
four miles north of Conover. The Project lies within the Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Department
of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-08-32 and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit
hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03 05 01011400 10 (Lyle Creek watershed, a Target Local Watershed) (Figure
1). The Project provides the opportunity to protect 61.04 acres of riparian habitat and provides water quality
benefit downstream of the approximately 427-acre project drainage area. The Project is accessible from C
& B Farm Road and Swinging Bridge Road (Figure 1). Coordinates for the Project are as follows:
35.765828 N, and-81.185426 W.
The Project is protected by a conservation easement totaling 61.04 acres and is comprised of two separate
easement parcels consisting of Bakers Creek and seven of its unnamed tributaries that drain into Lyle Creek
a direct tributary to the Catawba River. The drainage area of the Project is approximately 427 acres. The
project area was primarily active pasture, scattered hay crop fields, and disturbed riparian forest, with three
agricultural ponds located in the project area. Vegetation around the ponds and the unbuffered stream
reaches were primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation and scattered trees. Additionally, the riparian
buffer where vegetated was in poor condition throughout most of the project where it was narrow ten to
twenty foot wide from top of bank.
The Dogtown Stream Mitigation Site was built to not only provide stream restoration, enhancement, and
preservation on approximately 11,602 linear feet of streams within the conservation easement through a
separate mitigation banking instrument with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) but also
restore and preserve the riparian buffer and surrounding areas. Riparian restoration and preservation of the
Catawba River Basin per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (1) and other riparian areas onsite result in immediate water
quality benefits within the vicinity of the Project and included the removal of agricultural practices adjacent
to project streams and reduction in nutrient loads from agricultural land -uses. The riparian restoration
activities within the Project also result in improved water quality within the downstream watershed.
1.2 Project Success Criteria
Riparian buffer vegetation monitoring is based on the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level
2 Plot Sampling Only Version 4.2. Annual vegetation monitoring will continue to occur each year for a
minimum of five years and will be conducted during the fall season with the first year occurring at least 5
months from initial planting. Twenty-two vegetation monitoring plots were installed a minimum of 100 m2
in size and cover more than at least two percent of the riparian restoration area. Plots were randomly placed
throughout the planted buffer zones and are representative of the crediting areas, one fixed vegetation plot
Dogtown Buffer 1 Baseline Monitoring Report
Mitigation Site August 2023

has been placed within an area RES is seeking additional stream credit for wider buffers. The following
data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location.
Photos are to be taken from all photo points each monitoring year and provided in the annual reports. The
measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at least four native hardwood tree
species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of the established stems, established at a density of
at least 260 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5. Native volunteer species may be included to meet
the performance standards. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and treated so that none become
dominant or alter the desired community structure of the site.
RES must monitor the stream mitigation bank for a minimum of seven years, or until IRT approval.
Therefore, plots placed within riparian restoration areas that are outside of the mitigation area for buffer
will be monitored in accordance with the monitoring protocol in the Dogtown Stream Mitigation Plan.
A visual assessment of the conservation easement will also be performed each year to confirm:
• Easement markers are in good condition throughout the site;
• No encroachment has occurred;
• No invasive species in areas where invasive species were treated,
• Diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement areas; and
• There has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would
negatively affect the functioning of the buffer.
1.3 Project Components
This Bank includes 14.52 acres (632,588 ft2) of riparian buffer restoration area and 15.17 acres (660,716
ft2) of riparian buffer preservation resulting in 611,204.621 buffer restoration and 42,172.600 buffer
preservation credits respectively. The Sponsor will maintain one credit ledger for both buffer Restoration
credits and buffer preservation credits. All mitigation credit assets shall be shown on the credit ledger. The
total potential riparian buffer mitigation credits that the Dogtown Bank generated are summarized in
Appendix A.
1.4 Riparian Restoration Approach
Preparation within the Project involved treating invasive vegetation like Chinese privet and multiflora rose,
contoured ripping, seeding and planting, and pond removal. Disturbed areas were stabilized to prevent
erosion by seeding with a mixture of pollinator friendly temporary and permanent seed mix. The seed
mixture of riparian seeding was applied and established where bare areas were present due to impacts from
stream construction activities. Prior to seeding and planting, areas of compacted soils were ripped and
disked. Temporary and permanent riparian seeding was consistent with the Planted Seed Mix Summary
(Appendix B).
Buffer restoration activities were conducted along stream reaches S1A S1B, S2A, S2B, S3A, S3B, DT1A,
DT1B DT3A, DT3B, DT4 and Bakers Creek in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n). The ponds at the top of DT1A were constructed for stream restoration which
restored and daylighted the connection between the pond and downstream. The stream design approach
included breaching the existing dam and meandering the constructed channel within the natural valley
(Appendix A). The riparian areas adjacent to the newly constructed stream channel within the pond
footprint were planted for buffer restoration credit in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B 0295 (o) and labeled
as a "Pond" feature on Table 1. All riparian restoration areas were planted from top of bank back at least
50 feet from the stream with bare root tree seedlings on a 9 by 6 foot spacing to achieve an initial density
of 800 trees per acre. The buffered channels provide water quality and habitat functions within the Catawba
Dogtown Buffer 2 Baseline Monitoring Report
Mitigation Site August 2023

River Basin. The restored plant communities within the Project provide stabilization and improve water
quality within the easement limits but also provide ecological benefits to the entire watershed.
Buffer preservation was applied in the forested areas along S1A SIB, S2A, S2B, S3A, S3B, DT1A, DT1B
DT2, DT2A, DT3A, DT3B, DT4 and Bakers Creek, in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation
Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6). Minimal maintenance outside of treating invasive vegetation growths
and maintaining the easement is anticipated due to the past landuse history.
1.5 Construction and As -Built Conditions
Revegetation of the site included treating invasive species and planting native hardwood bare root trees.
Prior to planting, RES prepped the site by spraying and ripping the easement. There target vegetative
community within the project was designed after a Piedmont Alluvial Forest. The Piedmont Alluvial Forest
community is defined by Schafale and Weakely (2012). The planting of bare root trees occurred in March
2023. There were no deviations from the initial planting plan. A list of the planted species can be found in
Table 2.
Stream construction activities were completed in February 2023. The site was constructed in accordance
with the Approved Mitigation Plan and associated permits and the construction was verified by DWR on a
site visit in April 2023. RES acquired 404 (SAW-2017-00608) and 401 (2018-1097v2) Permits. There were
no easement changes between BPDP approval and construction. The conservation easement will be marked
at each corner and every 200 feet with Unique Places 2 Save signs attached to t-posts. Signage details are
noted within the Adaptive Management Plan attached in Appendix E.
1.6 Baseline Monitoring Performance
The Dogtown Monitoring activities were completed in March and April 2023. All Baseline Monitoring data
is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation and stream interim success
criteria.
Monitoring of the 22 vegetation plots was completed during April 2022. Vegetation tables are in Appendix
B and associated photos are in Appendix C. MYO monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the
interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 446 to 769 planted
stems per acre with a mean of 636 planted stems per acre across all plots. Vigor of the planted stems was
recorded as a "3" unless otherwise noted. A total of eight species were documented within the plots.
Volunteer species were not noted at baseline monitoring but are expected to establish in upcoming years.
The average tree height observed was 1.38 feet.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. There was no encroachment observed or similar activities
that would negatively affect the functioning of the buffer.
During the As -Built site walk, April 26th, 2023, DWR officials noticed several areas of potential low stem
density and the easement boundary was not adequately marked in some areas. Unmanaged vegetation
(vines, blackberry, fennel, herbaceous, fallen trees) and inundated areas were present possibly supporting
an absence of planted stems or areas lacking in sufficient stem density. Two monitoring transects performed
and data will be included per low stem density area in the MY1 report. Proposals to manage and monitor
these areas and are detailed in Appendix E under an Adaptive Management Plan.
2.0 Methods
Dogtown Buffer 3 Baseline Monitoring Report
Mitigation Site August 2023

Vegetation monitoring and visual assessments are conducted on an annual basis at 22 permanent
monitoring plots. Vegetation Plots were established based on protocols outlined in Section 1.2 above. One
vegetation plot is outside riparian restoration zone but will be included in monitoring and reporting.
Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2
(Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data is
processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each fixed plot were permanently
marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken
from the origin each monitoring year. Data from those plots measuring success of the areas where buffer
credit is being sought are provided in the monitoring reports. These plots were randomly placed
throughout the planted riparian mitigation area and are representative of the riparian restoration areas. All
fixed vegetation monitoring plots are at least partially within riparian buffer crediting area however, some
due to the narrow restoration area, are not fully within the riparian buffer restoration area. The number of
monitoring plots needed based on riparian buffer area restoration is 12 while number of plots installed is
22, well over the minimum required. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species,
height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. All stems in plots were flagged with flagging tape.
3.0 Reference
Resource Environmental Solutions (2019). Dogtown Mitigation Site — Bank Parcel Development Plan
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). "Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities
2013."
NC Environmental Management Commission. 2014. Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0295 - Mitigation Program
Requirements for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Fourth Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Dogtown Buffer 4 Baseline Monitoring Report
Mitigation Site August 2023

Appendix A
Project Background Tables and Site Maps

Table 1. Dogtown, 2018-1097v2, Project Credits
Catawba Buffer
Project Area
N Credit Conversion Ratio (ftz/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 (ft)
Total (Creditable)
Area of Buffer
i
Mitigation (ft)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:l)
%Full Credit
Final Credit
Ratio (x:l)
Convertible to
Riparian
Buffer?
Riparian Buffer
Credits
Convertible to
Nutrient Offset?
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: N (Ibs)
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: P (Ibs)
Buffer
Rural
No
In -Line Pond
Restoration
0-50
3 Ponds (PA, PB, PC)
81,107
81,107
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
81,107.000
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
0-50
51
107,998
107,998
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
107,998.000
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
101-200
51 (151-200)
10,443
10,443
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
3,446.193
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
0-50
1 52
29,064
29,064
1
1 100%
1.00000
Yes
29,064.000
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
101-200
52 (151-200)
21,474
21,474
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
7,086.427
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
0-50
53
79,886
79,886
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
79,886.000
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
0-50
DTl
29,425
29,425
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
29,425.000
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
0-50
DT2
5,387
5,387
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
5,387.000
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
0-50
DT3
96,783
96,783
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
96,783.000
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
0-50
DT4
94,390
94,390
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
94,390.000
No
-
-
Buffer
Rural
No
I / P
Restoration
0-50
Baker's Creek
76,632
76,632
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
76,632.000
No
-
-
Totals (ft2):
Total Buffer (ft2):
Total Nutrient Offset (ft2):
632,588
632,588
611,204.621 0.000 0.000
632,588
632,SS8
0
N/A
Total Ephemeral Area (ft) for Credit
Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ftZ).
Enter Preservation Credits Below Total Eligible for Preservation (ft)
Credit Type Location Subject? Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min -Max BufferWidth (ft) Feature Name `
Rural No / P
Rural No / P
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Restoration:
632,588
611,204.621
Enhancement:
0
0.000
Preservation:
210,863
42,172.600
Total Riparian Buffer:
843,451
653,377.221
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
I Square Feet
I Credits
Nutrient Offset:
Nitrogen:
0
0.000
Phosphorus:
0.000
0-50
101-200
Preservation Area Subtotals (ft)
1. The Randleman Lake buffer rules allow some ditches to be classified as subject according to 15A NCAC 02B .0250 (5)(a).
0
0
210,863
0.0%
210,863
25.0%
Total Area (sf)
Total (Creditable)
Area for Buffer
Mitigation (ft)
489,633
210,863
171,083
0
660,716
210,863
Ephemeral Reaches as %TABM
preservation as %TABM
Initial Credit %Full Credit Final Credit Riparian
Ratio x:1 I Ratio (x:l) Buffer Credits
5 100% 1 5,00000 1 42,172,600
5 33% -
last updated 08/03/2020

J
la
yr
qzOlg
61
11 e
270
06'
ay
IISISIW
9-
Barn
=r
Legend
C3Proposed Easement onover
Rrverbend
Park
Pock Barn
Go If& Spa
O
tP
Claremont
Ox forq d,
CIO
O
I Figure 1. Site Map
EM E
Drawn by: DGD
Ift
$ Dogtown Mitigation Site Checked by: RTM
rJr 0 0.5 1
000%;ZZ;;;� Catawba County, North Carolina 1 inch = 5,000 feet
Miles

4-
ores
resilient a Restoring earth for a modern world
' R
i
=sP.r a ta,-=• 3 ` r;,1 �1..., i. W E
6 '4 , S
r•
'��•� �� �. D N th r.
Figure 2A CCPV
ogtown or
Proposed Supplemental Planting - O.S3 acres
420 Stems
\\ Dogtown
Mitigation Project
Catawba
wba County,
5�+ North Carolina
f:
* Drawn 'fir': r� '; � s 1 t � ,,, a 3� r � Date: 8/2/2023 D by: DGD
` r' +, f• 1:3,000 Checked by: RTM
f�
jj
S1-B t
Dogtown Easement
PI Vegetation
_t
e Within Buffero
Mitigation Area
71
4 - ■
S � '� � ' ," � Vegetation Plot
` -
� Outside of Buffer
3`.
■Mitigation Area
t
F Restoration 0-50'
Restored Pond
Footprint 0-50'
v
Restoration 101-151'
z/ S3-13 . k ,�`F� a
Preservation 0-50'
8 r
- 53 A '~ Preservation 101-200'
Lo
Supplemental
`k�F'a 7❑ Planting
- Clearing/Suppleme...
®Planting
Restoration
, Enhancement II
Enhancement III (10)
Enhancement III (7.5
Preservation

3 U o
VEL4 E $
.. }�P.....'S..... ,
mr'd . J`
SONIMtl aA3A21f1siiinS-SV
:HOJ 43Sb 13H
j
'o
N
oo � 'zN� �
cU
�� ��
•r3
me
y„9y
aiva lord :srvolslndd
w o
o N
3 0
CC,L
o�N z�a� a
0 0 p N
7i oQnuw o
KO�pF<W�r
z�wzO1Lz�
K
a K — Iz
3�0���m�n— z
OZFFx
O
�2.ZFWwU z
��wOV�r zK
3o�5�Fp00
z�
�La00=aZ0
N��zOr�ro�
L����o OzOw N
rK��LOaKK "�
ON
W�oor OM z0
OOaLQt�uO�� ZF-
��Oo�a�Ooz au ZOU u�0 OL
O OO¢�riaK�Oo �O
U jwKZUU UZ =Ow �L
=�nOaOQaaUO 3 V
W
U)
z
O
r Q O
QZ
J O
LO O
UO
cr CM
C O Z o
G Z Q N COW
w z Er Z)
W
O Ir
a
coz
Q Q
C) U
O
O
U
U
J
J
U)
Z
0
J o
O W
r_
J 5
F— ; N
Z Q w z
❑
o =
O C7
Z 3 w
J CC
cs
O
Z M
W
W
U
Ir
O
U)
W
Er
c
cN
_
N
0
0
m
—
61
C
F
N
�
C
0
0
SL
p y v
O
�
O
�
N
/
O
�
o
o-
�
w
�=
zN
Q
OQN
> N
K
1QO
ULU
YwZN
mZN
O/
pUwz
pC,
Y
O L
Z >
J
U'Cc) 00w�
N �00
�Uuu
} m
m N
❑ wN
OUL
0�
N ��p
KO�O
�NVO
a -0� 0 Z U
�wz?
m w
Uwe
�UaUO

3 U o
VEL4 E $
.�}ti P......s..... ,
mr'd . J`
S`JNIMtl aA3A21f1siiinS-SV
:tl°d°3Sb 13H
$
'o��
N
oo � 'zN� �
cO
�� ��
•r3
me
y„9y
aiv° lord :srvolslndd
w o
o m
3 0
p
o�N
0 0 g p N
7i OQmuw o
KO�p F<W�r
zz O 1�z� 0
K
Q 1 K — lz
3�oop�m�n— z
m�ozFFx�
��w OO�rpzK
3o�5�F pOO
z�
��Qpp=azO
m��zOr �ro�
s����O ozOw N
rK��zOa KK K
z� O
No
��O7�Q�poz zact u
Qu 0�,O 0� w }w<V ¢w'N }f K
n'uO�O°1
NO
mO
FZwuOgLl o
FsZ<u
=no4OUON
< U0 v
u
W I
Q o
LLO
0
U o J �
O
2 a
F N r ~ JT
cr co
a � n
Z
Z OC —
z
} m LU w O
Q Z I /
W > z
U o� � ¢, F
M
> /
m m
� a a w
f
0 0
w
0 I
K w
w z
m m m W U m
c
U�J-1/

Appendix B
Vegetation Assessment Data

Appendix B. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 2a. Planted Species Summary
Common Name
Scientific
Quantity Planted
% Composition
River Birch
Betula nigra
3900
15
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
2600
10
Yellow Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
2600
10
American Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
3900
15
Swamp Chestnut
Oak
Quercus michauxii
2600
10
Water Oak
I Quercus nigra
3900
15
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
3900
15
Northern red Oak
Quercus rubra
2600
10
Table 2b. Planted Seed Mix Summary
Common Name
Scientific
Composition
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus virginicus
25
Indian Grass
Sorghastrum nutans
25
Little Blue Stem
Schizachyrum scopanum
10
Soft Rush
Juncus effusus
10
Blackeyed Susan
Rudbeckia hirta
10
Deer Tongue
Diamthelum clandestinum
10
Common Milkweed
Asclepias synaca
5
Showy Goldenrod
Solidago erects
5

Appendix B. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 3. Main Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted Stem
Height (ft)
1
567
0
567
Yes
1.5
2
567
0
567
Yes
1.6
3
688
0
688
Yes
1.4
4
647
0
647
Yes
1.5
5
607
0
607
Yes
1.6
6
688
0
688
Yes
1.2
7
445
0
445
Yes
1.5
8
769
0
769
Yes
1.3
9
769
0
769
Yes
1.4
10
647
0
647
Yes
1.4
11
728
0
728
Yes
1.5
12
769
0
769
Yes
1.3
13
688
0
688
Yes
1.4
14
567
0
567
Yes
1.2
15
526
0
526
Yes
1.0
16
567
0
567
Yes
1.5
17
769
0
769
Yes
1.5
18
688
0
688
Yes
1.5
19
567
0
567
Yes
1.3
20
607
0
607
Yes
1.4
21
647
0
647
Yes
1.0
22
486
0
486
Yes
1.5
Project
Avg
636
0
614
Yes
1.4

Appendix B. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 4. Main Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Current Plot Data (MYO 2023)
Sped
100148-01-0001
100148-01-0002
100148-01-0003
100148-01-0004
100148-01-0005
100148-01-0006
100148-01-0007
100148-01-0008
100148-01-0009
100148-01-0010
100148-01-0011
Scientific Name
Common Name
es
Type
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Pnol-
S
P-
all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
5
5
5
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Liriodendron
tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Platanus
occidentalis
American
sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus
michauxii
swamp chestnut
oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
8
8
8
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red
oak
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
5
5
5
3
1 3
3
1
1
1 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
L18
Stem count
14
14
14
14
14
14
17
17
17
16
16
16
15
15
15
17
17
17
11
11
11
19
19
19
19
19
19
16
16
16
E18
18
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
6
6
6
8
8
8
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
567
56
7
56
7
567
56
7
56
7
688
68
8
68
8
647
64
7
64
7
607
60
7
60
7
688
68
8
68
8
445
44
5
44
5
769
76
9
76
9
769
76
9
76
9
647
64
7
64
7
728
72
8
72
8

Appendix B. Vegetation Assessment Data
Current Plot Data (MYO 2023)
Annual Means
100148-01-
100148-01-
100148-01-
100148-01-
100148-01-
100148-01-
100148-01-
100148-01-
100148-01-
100148-01-
100148-01-
MYO (2023)
Sped
0012
0013
0014
0015
0016
0017
0018
0019
0020
0021
0022
Common
es
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
Pno
P-
T
Scientific Name
Name
Type
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
T
LS
all
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
6
6
6
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
7
7
7
71
71
71
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
23
23
Liriodendron
28
28
28
tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Platanus
American
45
45
45
occidentalis
sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus
swamp
42
42
42
michauxii
chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
45
45
45
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
45
45
45
northern red
47
47
47
Quercus rubra
oak
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
34
34
346
Stem count
19
19
19
17
17
17
14
14
14
13
13
13
14
14
14
19
19
19
17
17
17
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
12
12
12
6
6
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.54
Species count
8
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
6
6
6
7
7
7
6
6
6
4
4
4
8
8
8
76
76
68
68
56
56
52
52
56
56
76
76
68
68
56
56
60
60
64
64
48
48
63
63
636
Stems per ACRE
769
9
9
688
8
8
567
7
7
526
6
6
567
7
7
769
9
9
688
8
8
567
7
7
607
7
7
647
7
7
486
6
6
6
6

Appendix C
Project Photos

Dogtown MYO Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 3 (03/09/2023)
Vegetation Plot 4 (03/09/2023)

Vegetation Plot 5 (03/09/2023)
Vegetation Plot 7 (03/09/2023)
Vegetation Plot 6 (03/09/2023)
Vegetation Plot 8 (03/09/2023)

I
1 r
i
-'-�'i_:`':.:1,�;:s�•v�+r�.. ;�.-t: ,':anti y
Vegetation Plot 9 (03/09/2023)
ri
J1 f _
'*
At
it
"V' ..
Vegetation Plot 11 (03/09/2023)
Vegetation Plot 12 (03/09/2023)

Vegetation Plot 13 (Restored Pond Footprint) (03/09/2023
}s= m
A
4} ,
�.FiR.�l�r is _ - _,•�:..F -.._ 'n
Vegetation Plot 15 (Restored Pond Footprint) (03/09/2023)
Vegetation Plot 16 (03/09/2023)

Vegetation Plot 19 (03/09/2023)
Vegetation Plot 18 (03/09/2023)
Vegetation Plot 20 (03/09/2023)

yyA
i
- ,.-.
_0i
=
'f,
'� _.'�, . � .}vim 5
(��p!f+•''� ���+Y.�' }'7r
-
Vegetation Plot 21 (03/10/2023)
Vegetation Plot 22 (03/10/2023)

Dogtown Stream Mitigation Work
Riffle S1-A (1/05/23)
Riffle S2-B (1/05/23)

ra.
;
�.r
4
Pool S2-13 (1/05/23)
Riffle S3-13 (1/05/23)

Appendix D
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woody Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: �}`
Project:
Team::
Plot: Dater / /g. 5 Bearing:
Coordinates
Species Name
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Height DBH
Vigor Damage
(1 cm) (1 cm)
1
V (1
L1 2.
C, .
2
'15
I
3
L4
Q . 5e)
.
5
$
2
5
6
IJ 4 U
5
z )
3L4
7
u
-s
U
5
9
10
U Y U
11
1r7
q 'A
12
l L]
{6-5
13
(3 1
2
n
14
u
�'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

1
Leader:Ir� Project::'"s'
Species Naive
Woody Stem
Planted Woody Stems
',,' ' Team: i
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
CJ G Z
Data: CVS
--individual
Plot: Z
He-s
(I Cm)
Level 2
stems
Date: /
DBH
(1 Cm)
measured
/=� Bearing:
Vapor
Damage
Q U h
2
L4 x
3
fyc VI
5ril
4
Q U r U
r7
6
1 -1 4 U
; 7-
8
P! O C
o
y
9
C"}UY U
10
Q U M
11
5?
i
12
13
14
�7 11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woody Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader:
Project:
py
Team:-.• .'
Plot: Z
Dater
/ / '.Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Height
(1 Cm)
DBH
(1 Cm)
Vigor
Damage
2
3
NIJ V y'N
1�
n
4
r
'I
5
6
tc!H
7
(� u
4 .
9,z
8
h
CJ
H
2
9
1 Y V
!
• -1
Li l
10
) ).i
0
5
,� f
11
5
12
iU
7k
q• C1
��
13
14
jls
3
!J
15i�f'
�114
16
{�
3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woodv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: F,+� ��',4`� }iTeam: Plot: LI Dater /'; / `;Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Height
(1 cm)
DBH
(1 cm)
Vigor
Damage
2
v�Vl;
Z
6CJ
4
U YY\. "
I • r%
1 2
U
5
YV
9 C
Z '4
6
C-
5 1
7
Q 0 VVI
Z
�?
8
rU h" ,
r Z5
5
9
0n
.7
7
55
10
'1 k!v�
11
) UwN
q
12
t) 0
13
0i 0
J
• U
1 C)
14
Qufu
i
15
16
N
a
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woody Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader:
Project: r - ,
Team: 06..
Plot: 4; Date: 3 / % /Z->Bearing:
Coordinates
Species IVame X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Height DBH Vigor Damage
(1 Cm) (1 Cm)
21
Lk
I 1
6). 1,)17
3as,�
e
1
4
{
5
6
7
L{
9
10
11i,�All
L•
20
12
II C.
1
13
ploc
14
15
L�
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem
Data: CVS
Level 2
Planted Woody Stems
-- individual
stems
measured
Leader:) Project:
' , i .j ' �Team: ��
Plot:
Date:
/ j 6; Bearing:
Species l�arne
Coordinates
Height
DBH
Vigor
Damage
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
(1 Cm)
(1 Cm)
2
'- eY\
0.1
5.1.
3
4
5
r ) y1
�i Z G
6
V bj
7
8
Q1 -I
,
9
czw VV\
10
19
11
12
13
k I yy,,
Co
C
14
15
1 U
16
U
17
U v1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woodv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: Team: Plot: Date: / / Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Height
(1 Cm)
DBH
(1 Cm)
Vigor
Dama e
2
-� f .,6
• 0
f)
6
3
. b
Z D'>
4
s�
Li
5
a �
6
.t4
L A
Cjf,
7
\
8
7
9
2n
-T • 1
G,
a
10
wOL
( •�
0
11
ft C)
(
l�
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woodv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: Team: Plot: D.
1
m

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted
Woody Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project:
Team:
Plot: Date:3/T / '''Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Height DBH Vigor Damage
(1 Cm) (1 cm)
1 r i vA t
t� •�
2
4
O • -7
'
5 tzr
6 T
71r
7 2b
8
$
9
2 --i?
10 ,�r`
50
11 p Q41
• ��
fl
12
to -7.r
13
14
7
a •�-
_
15
16 ( ,•
,
n
17 Lr
3 a
18
19 -
8—
3
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woodv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: Team: Plot: Date: / / Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X 0.1 m ( 0.1 m
( ) Y )
Height
[1 cm}
DBH
(1 cm)
Vigor
Damage
1
, � ;
o • Z.
� • r-1
5 I
2
3
4-IA
4
& t"'x
6 -7
Sz
5
6
7
9
(„
. °�,
10
o1�
11
Z 2�t�
I
12
7
�,
13
" -rf `e
`i
0
15
16�
4J1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Plantari Wnnriv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: Team: Plot: + t, Date: 3/ / 313earing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Height
(1 Cm)
DBH
(1 cm)
Vigor
Damage
2
3
4
L.
d
5
7S
6
.9
7
r
t
.
(!::�,
s
a
'�
9
i
104'�
11
a -a
f . �j
L{
12
#
13'�+C?
14
lad.
•ca
�}O
15
(,? ,,�
�� • —1
• L
D
16
17
Lp, Vr%:,
j
18
17104
q-�
w
72
19
201-
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
PlantPri Wonriv Stems -- individual stems measured
1
..
i
N
�*:011s1•���--
MMMMMM
EMMMMMMM
IMMMM

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woody stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: ' Project:�(�} ` Team:) .•ji1 Plot: Date:':' / Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Heigh #
(1 Cm)
DBH
(1 Cm)
Vigor
Damage
1
4- U
a .
d 2
21
`I
l 1
l/
S
1
3
) [ L
r
Zpl
5
6
8
G)J YU
3
-.j
G C,
10
12
Quilvi
1
� ,a
�n
13
0, U ►
f-) Cl
14
- 9
15
?
�� C— i
C�
`�
16
17
�f
c �•
18
1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Piantari Wnnriv Stems -- individual stems measured
1Name
r
. :�

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Plantad Wnndv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: DOG,Plot: Date: / j /;rgq'��Bearing:
1 Iv OG, -,-,,---;.,.-Team: .1 � L/
Species Name
Coordinates
He_ kht
DBH
Vigor
Damage
�
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
(1 cm)
(1 Cm)
1
L��
. 1
-;•
(0
2
.LQC-
C)
41
V V
.l
® C6
c.a
5
PLO
6
PLO
1
�
7•t,
L
8
CJ%a
• �i
C� C7
f
9
L i
W
a
4
10
N,-:
11fJr,
e
12
T"�
i~
13,
Il
a
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woodv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader:p ProjectTeam:-'j
Plot: Dater / /� Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
He_iht
(1 cm)
DBH
(1 cm)
Vigor
Damage
f
{ I
2
3
QU V' U
f'
4
5
r)
6�i'
�j
�, • r
�_i
7
d U V U
H2
Z
r
8
Q u j,�
Li
9
10
C.
12
;
r
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woodv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: F "� �` ` ` t Team:h
Plot: Date: / P1 / Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Height
(1 cm)
DBH
(1 cm)
Vigor
Dames
1
,'1
2
C CN
3
{ L�1
Z n
4
Z
flfl
l
n
5
6
(f1 "1 �
7
�. 'r J
y
8
Z?
1
-1
9
1' u
??
10
50
{
E-t
I
11
13
`U�� I
14
I-N
15
s -1'
16
k i'f L s
171
o U�6
1s
v y ki
19
au
ell('
20
d
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woodv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: P Project: J. `` Team: I Ir 'y) Plot: I '� Date: / /� Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Hem
(1 cm)
DBH
(1 cm)
Vigor
Dama e
1
PI()C
. Z
0 . 5
2
.(
o L4
7 .Z
3
C' e
C Lf•
5
4
VY`1�
rL �,
7 (a
5
1l.
\ Y \ i
- f
rn C,
6
Z.
7
Z
(-.
8
4 �`j
'-4 '-7
2 4
S �
9
57 -)
�rt r )
10
rJQ V iA
(
11
i
12
L1 1�i
_
�,`++.
13
g
q
14
3
15
k i I
16
j3 C Iry ;
0
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
.
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woody Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: bO(, ` VV N) Team: Plot: a,O Date: 3 /3 /; 3Bearing:
Species
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
HeI&h
(1 cm)
DBH
(1 cm)
Vigor
Damage
�Name
• 1
7
2
3
Ec
CA LI
4
1&
Dl
5
G
q -7
� S
8
a--, IQ
3 . 7
9
a 11
11►.
IV y
Ci .
12
LI
y
13
-�k.
14
L f4
'3
15
ei • (]YO
16
17
18
19
20
21
.
22
23
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Wnndv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project:T,,', Team: Plot: ( Date: 3 / /23Bearing:
Species Name
., Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Hem
(1 cm)
DBH
(1 cm)
Vigor
Darnage
2
1./
�8
3
4
5
(E
`a • 8
3
7
zz
i t
LI ?
8
D
2 -1
t
9
er.
C-Z� • 1
.0
L4
10
r,,
-u,7--
3?3
11
,�. ;a .
4467
12
Z
13
€,.��
7 —
14
/o
%
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woodv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: C�r Team: Plot: Z� Date:3 /j' /Zs""Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
Height
(1 cm)
DBH
(1 cm)
Vigor
Dama e
2
i,.r��
Z •
i
5
3
4
01.41
i, 1.r
5
6
' . ,C4
!?
(D
a
7Z-
8
23
10
r"?
11
N'1�C
72
12
3
13
a
—7.7
2
14
15
2 • l
4 • 5'
16
17
-
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Woody Stem Data: CVS Level 2
Planted Woodv Stems -- individual stems measured
Leader: Project: Team: Plot: 2-2— Date: 9/,?7Bearing:
Species Name
Coordinates
X (0.1 m) Y (0.1 m)
He� i�ht
(1 Cm)
DBH
(1 Cm)
Vigor
Dams e
3
tZ Lk P1
(o 7
Z
Sd
4
fr%.
. G'd
5
7la
5
�.
6
7
„�
3
8
.:,
N 7
9
i
5
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Appendix E
Adaptive
Management
Plan

August 14, 2023
Katie Merritt
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
RE: Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank (DWR 2018-1097 V2) Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Bank — Year 0 Monitoring Adaptive Management Memo
Dear Ms. Merritt,
Through the implementation of the Dogtown Riparian Buffer Bank Project, thus far, only minor maintenance and site
preparation activities have been performed in order to create and maintain a high functioning stream and riparian
buffer system. Maintenance activities within the 61.04-acre conservation easement, up to this point, have included:
• Invasive species management - June 2023
• Mowing and disking post construction - February/March 2023
• Conservation Easement Posts installed — March/August 2023
During the As -Built site walk, April 26tt`, 2023, DWR officials noticed:
• Areas lacking in sufficient stem density were observed in multiple areas and need to be
planted.
o RES will conduct a supplemental planting of roughly 1.11 acres across several areas within the
riparian planting zone where there have been concerns about the stem density. Species used will
be from the approved BPDP. Planting will occur in Fall/Winter 2023 prior to year one monitoring
additional vegetation monitoring transects will be performed in the supplemental planting areas
and results will be included in the MY1 report.
• Easement boundary was not adequately marked in some areas.
o RES has installed additional easement posts in areas where it exceeds 200 feet in between posts
and in areas where further clarification concerning the easement is needed. Placards have been
installed facing outwards from the easement on all posts. Work was completed the week of August
7th, 2023.
• Unmanaged vegetation (vines, blackberry, fennel, herbaceous, fallen trees) was present and
these areas were observed to be void of planted stems or lacking in sufficient stem
density. Transects will be necessary to prove planted stem density if EBX is proposing not
to plant in these areas.
o RES will mow or physically cut existing vegetation in both areas outlined in DWR's
comment letter prior to supplemental planting. RES will plant 160 bare roots or container
trees from the approved planting list within Area 3 (0.19 acres) and Area 2 (0.39 acres)
will be planted with 310 stems from top of bank out. Existing canopy trees will remain.
Both areas will have two separate vegetation monitoring transects per location performed
during MY to ensure its stem density is adequate and the species planted will be drawn
from the approved planting list.
RES staff have calculated desired stem densities to ensure the site meets success criteria. Planted supplementary stems
will include sourcing as much as possible from the original planting list. Focal areas are outlined below and
correspond by number with the attached maps. Upon approval of this plan, RES would like to conduct these
maintenance activities in Fall/Winter 2023. Photographs of all completed items and supplemental vegetation data
proposed in this AMP will be included in the Monitoring Year One Report.
Thank you,
Benton Carroll I Project Manager

DOGTOWN RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
Adaptive Management Plan 2023
CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Catawba River Basin 03050101
DWR Project # 2018-1097v2
Provided by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc and Exchange (EBX)
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1055
August 2023

Attachments
• Figure la —Adaptive Management Problem Areas (Dogtown North)
• Figure lb — Adaptive Management Problem Areas (Dogtown North)
• Problem Area Photos
• Proposed Tree Species Summary

Summary of Adaptive Management Plan Goals
Areas 1, 2, and 3 were all believed to have insufficient stem density based on the 280 planted trees per acre success
criteria. Area 1 (Figure 1 a — Dogtown North) had dense stands of pollinator friendly wildflowers and bare roots were
challenging to find while conducting the site walk. This area also had sporadic inundated areas which was believed to
be a contributing factor towards the density of planted stems. RES will replant this area to ensure it meets proper stem
density numbers.
Area 2 is located in the downstream right flood plain of Bakers Creek on Figure lb — Dogtown South, this area was
not managed for vegetation prior to planting so stems were planted around fallen trees and cane or vine growth as the
planting subcontractors worked through the site. RES will replant this area after excessive and nuisance vegetation is
cleared to ensure it meets the success criteria.
Area 3 is located opposite Bakers Creek from Area 2 (Figure lb — Dogtown South), this area contains a mature tree
canopy from top of bank up to 15 feet out. The understory of this vegetated area consists of blackberry and vined
vegetation the planting crew did not plant sufficiently. RES will replant this area after excessive and nuisance
vegetation is cleared to ensure it meets the success criteria.
Easement signage throughout the site was missing at the time of the As -Built site walk and several areas needed
additional posts installed for clarity and to ensure that there was an easement placard at least every 200 feet.
Description of Proposed Corrective Measures
Area 1
Issue: Area lacking in sufficient stem density (NCDWR Photos 9&10).
Cause: Low stem density planting, potential tree die off, inundated roots causing die off, low visibility.
Treatment: RES will replant the 0.53 acre area with 420 bare roots or container trees at a spacing consistent with an
800 stems per acre density. RES will plant species originally accepted in the BPDP. The supplemental planting will
occur in Fall or early Winter of 2023 prior to monitoring year one. RES will perform two separate vegetation
monitoring transects during MY1 to ensure its stem density is adequate and provide results and photographs within
the MY report.
Area 2
Issue: Low stem density area (NCDWR Photos 3&6).
Cause: Unmanaged vegetation (vines, blackberry, fennel, herbaceous, fallen trees) was present and these areas were
observed to be void of planted stems or lacking in sufficient stem density.
Treatment: RES will mow or manually cut/clear the existing nuisance vegetation in this area prior to supplemental
planting. RES will plant at a density of 800 stems/acre resulting in 310 bare roots or container trees from the approved
planting list planted within this 0.39 acre area. This area will have two separate vegetation monitoring transects
performed during MY1 to ensure its stem density is adequate. All results and photographs will be included in the
monitoring year one report.
Area 3
Issue: Low stem density area (NCDWR Photos 2&7).
Cause: Existing vegetation not managed prior to planting.
Treatment: RES will mow or manually cut/clear existing vegetation in this area prior to supplemental planting.
Existing canopy trees will remain. Plant 160 bare roots or container trees from the approved planting list within this
0.19 acre area from top of bank out to roughly 15 feet where it ties into the previously planted area. This area will
have two separate vegetation monitoring transects performed during MY to ensure its stem density is adequate. All
results and photographs will be included in the monitoring year one report.

Conservation Easement Shmage
Issue: Easement posts did not have placards installed and some areas were greater than the 200 foot maximum spacing
requirement (NCDWR Photo 1).
Cause: Signs were not installed and a misunderstanding with the contractor on easement post spacing resulted in
fewer posts than required.
Treatment: Additional easement posts have been added in areas where it exceeds 200 feet in between posts and in
areas where further clarification is desired. RES has installed posts and placards facing outwards on all posts from
within the conservation easement. Photographs of easement signage and posts will be included in the monitoring year
one report.
Photos of each problem area are found in the Attachments.

Dogtown Problem Area Photos
a �
tt fq E' r
yd
�y,Area 1 Low Stem Density (4/26/2023)
Al U.
axe?
Area 2 — Vegetative Management & Low Stem Density (4/26/2023) Area 2 — Vegetative Management & Low Stem Density (4/26/2023)

Area 3 — Vegetative Management & Low Stem Density (4/26/2023) Area 3 — Vegetative Management & Low Stem Density (4/26/2023)
Improper Easement Signage Placement

Proposed Tree Species Summary — Dogtown Mitigation Site
Common Name
Scientific
River Birch
eetula nigra
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Yellow Poplar
briodendron tulipifera
American Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
Northern red Oak
Quercus rubra