20220550 Ver 1_RunningDog_100210_MY1_2023_20231218

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL 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 12/1/2020)

Data Collection Period: August 2023 - October 2023
Final Submission Date: December 2023

PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
December 13, 2023

Mr. Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115

RE: Draft Monitoring Year 1 Report Comments
Running Dog Mitigation Site, Union County
Yadkin River Basin, 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 1 Report for the Running Dog buffer mitigation site that were received on
December 4, 2023. The report has been updated to reflect those comments. The Final Monitoring Year 1
Report (MY1) is included. DMS’ comments are listed below in bold. Wildlands’ responses to DMS’
comments are noted in italics.
DMS’ comment: 5 Results of Year 1 Monitoring: Add discussion for each work item performed during
project construction. Include description of the performance of the stabilization measures and
condition of the graded areas.
Wildlands’ response: The herbaceous vegetation has become established and live stakes are growing on
the erosional areas on UT1 that were stabilized during project construction. There are no signs of further
erosion. Wildlands does not anticipate any further action needed in these areas. See section 5.2 for further
discussion.
DMS’ comment: 5.1 Vegetative Success: Add discussion to provide details of the live stake survival and
overall condition.
Wildlands’ response: The majority of live stakes that were planted in the small areas along UT1 had
leafed out in the summer and successfully rooted in the bankside. See Section 5.2 for further discussion.
DMS’ comment: DMS Site Inspection 11/28/23: The overall site condition looked good during the
inspection. The only noted issue concerned damage to some of the conservation easement signs and a
few of the witness posts. Multiple signs were damaged at some point during MY1; likely from the
operation of agricultural equipment on the adjacent row crops. Please ensure the easement is
adequately marked and any damaged signs/posts repaired. Installation of supplemental marking may
be necessary to provide improved visibility.
Wildlands’ response: The damaged signs/posts will be repaired, and additional signs will be installed
throughout the site this winter. The landowner has been notified of the issue and Wildlands will continue
to monitor the site for easement encroachment issues. See Section 5.2 for an additional discussion about
easement boundary inspections.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
As requested, Wildlands has included two (2) hard copies of the final report and a full final electronic
submittal of the support files. A copy of the DMS comment letter and our response letter have been
included inside the front cover of each report’s hard copy, as well. Please let me know if you have any
further questions.

Sincerely,

Andrea S. Eckardt
Ecological Assessment Team Leader
[e-mail]

Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final Page i
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1
Section 2: DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................................................2
Section 3: PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MONITORING PROTOCOLS .................................................2
Section 4: ANNUAL MONITORING AND REPORTING ...........................................................................3
4.1 Vegetation Success Criteria and Monitoring Protocol .................................................................. 3
4.2 Overview Site Photographs ........................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Visual Assessments ....................................................................................................................... 3
Section 5: RESULTS OF YEAR 1 MONITORING .....................................................................................4
5.1 Vegetative Success ........................................................................................................................ 4
5.2 Vegetative Areas of Concern and Parcel Maintenance ................................................................ 4
5.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 5
Section 6: REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................6

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Service Area Map
Figure 3 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Buffer Project Areas and Assets Table
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes Table
Table 5 Planted Tree Species Table

Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 4 Current Condition Plan View Map
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Site Overview Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs

Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8a-b Planted and Total Stem Counts Table
Table 9 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Table 10 Vegetation Height Data Table

Appendix 4 Correspondence
Wildlands and NC DWR email correspondence (October 6, 2023)

Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final Page 1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Description
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 was completed for buffer mitigation credits
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.
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 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.
Prior to planting, the buffer restoration area was occupied by agricultural fields, mainly used to produce
corn, wheat and/or soybeans. During construction, invasive species treatments to control Japanese
Honeysuckle and Chinese Privet in the enhancement and preservation areas were completed. Along
UT1, small erosional rills were graded and seeded while live stakes and coir matting were installed 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).
Tables 2 in Appendix 1 provide more detailed watershed and Site background information for this
project. Project history, location, and design are presented in the Running Dog Baseline Monitoring
Report (Wildlands, 2023).
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
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’s functional stressors with 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 restored floodplain will assist in filtering sediment
from the surrounding agricultural fields during high rainfall events. The establishment of riparian areas
will create shading to minimize thermal heating. Finally, invasive vegetation will be treated, 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
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final Page 2
Site Functional
Stressors Functional Uplift Potential Site Goal Site Objective
Water Quality:
Sediment
Significant sources of sediment include
eroding channels, streams, and adjacent
agricultural fields. Sediment will be
captured by deposition on restored
floodplain areas where native vegetation
will slow overland flow velocities.
Planted vegetation will help stabilize
streams and ephemeral channels.
Reduce sediment input
from adjacent
agricultural fields.
Reduce sediment inputs
to waters of Goose
Creek.
Water Quality:
Nutrients
Nutrient input will be decreased by
filtering runoff from the agricultural
fields through restored native
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.
Reduce nutrient input
from adjacent
agricultural fields.
Reduce nutrient inputs
to waters of Goose
Creek.
Water Quality:
Fecal Coliform
These pollutants will be reduced by
converting cropland fertilized with
chicken litter to forest and filtering
runoff from the adjacent fields and
poultry farm through the planted
vegetated buffers.
Restrict the application
of animal waste in the
conservation easement
and reduce fecal
coliform input from
adjacent agricultural
fields.
Reduce fecal
coliform inputs to
waters of Goose
Creek.

Water Quality:
Other
(Temperature)
Planted riparian trees will shade the
project features as they mature,
reducing thermal pollution.
Decrease water
temperature and
increase dissolved
oxygen concentrations
in the Site streams.
Improve water
quality of Goose
Creek through a
reduction of thermal
pollution.

Hydrology:
Non-Diffuse
Flow
Diffuse flow will be maintained
throughout the conservation easement
area where possible, thereby reducing
erosion and filtering of
nutrients into the project features.
Create diffuse-flow
discharge through the
reforested riparian
area.
Reduce erosion and
filter nutrients into
waters of Goose
Creek through
diffuse flow.

Habitat:
Lack of Riparian
Canopy
The existing land use of the riparian
buffer of the project features is
agriculture. The project will include
replanting of riparian zones with native
vegetation.
Riparian areas will
be restored by
planting native
vegetation.
Convert agricultural
fields to forested
riparian buffers along
all Site streams and
ephemeral channels.

Section 2: DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits are presented in Table 1 and Figure 3 in Appendix 1 and are based upon the as-built
survey included in the Running Dog Baseline Monitoring Report (Wildlands, 2023).

Section 3: PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MONITORING PROTOCOLS
The performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the Running
Dog Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2023), the NC DMS Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline

Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final Page 3
& Annual Monitoring Report Template, Version 2.0 (May 2017) and the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation
Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295).
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 or until performance criteria have been met. An outline of the performance criteria and
monitoring components are described below.
Section 4: ANNUAL MONITORING AND REPORTING
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and treated as necessary
throughout the required monitoring period. Complete monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of
each monitoring year (MY) and submitted to DMS by December 1st of the same year. Annual monitoring
reports will be based on the above referenced DMS Template (May 2017).
4.1 Vegetation Success Criteria and Monitoring Protocol
In monitoring year 3, the interim vegetative requirement is 320 stems per acre. The final vegetative
success criteria will be the survival of 260 stems per acre in the riparian corridor at the end of
monitoring year 5. The final performance standard shall include a minimum of four native hardwood
tree and shrub species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of stems. Native hardwood and
shrub volunteer species may be included to meet the final performance standard of 260 stems per acre
after being established for at least two years. Annual vegetation monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 1
& 2 Protocol for vegetative collection (Lee et. al., 2008) while data processing follows the NC DMS
Vegetation Data Entry Tool and Vegetation Plot Data Table (NCDMS, 2020).
A total of twelve (12) vegetation monitoring quadrants were established within the project easement
area using standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation monitoring plots. Plots were randomly established
within planted portions of the riparian buffer areas to capture the heterogeneity of the designed
vegetative communities. The plot corners have been marked and are recoverable either through field
identification or with the use of a GPS unit. Planted stems will be flagged to aid in their identification in
subsequent monitoring years. Reference photographs of the vegetation plots are taken annually from
the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner.
Vegetation plot locations are depicted on the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Map (Figure 4) in
Appendix 2. Photos depicting the current conditions of the vegetation plots for MY1 are also presented
in Appendix 2.
4.2 Overview 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. Overview site photographs are shown in Appendix 2.
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, and/or encroachment). Areas of concern will be mapped, photographed, and
accompanied by a written description in the annual monitoring report. Problem areas will be re-
evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment.

Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final Page 4
Section 5: RESULTS OF YEAR 1 MONITORING
During MY1 vegetative assessment a discrepancy was noted with one of the planted species. Some
northern red oak (Quercus rubra) species which were an unapproved bare root species were mislabeled
and bundled with swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) an approved bare root species. Due to this
error, the northern red oak stems were planted in the riparian buffer as if they, too, were swamp
chestnut oak. Therefore, since all the stems of the two species were labeled the same and bundled
together, the exact number of each species could not be determined. After the vegetative plot
assessment was finished for MY1, it was noted that there were no swamp chestnut oak stems planted
within any of the vegetation monitoring plots; however, during the Site's visual assessment of the
riparian buffer, swamp chestnut oak stems were found planted on the Site. DWR was contacted on
10/6/2023 and 10/17/2023 about the vegetation discrepancy and requested the addition of northern
red oak to the Site’s planting list. Refer to Table 5 in Appendix 1 for the planted tree species, and
Appendix 4 for the NC DWR correspondence.
5.1 Vegetative Success
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in October 2023. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem
density range of 405 to 769 planted stems per acre and volunteers that were identified for inclusion
after two years of establishment. The number of different species per plot for both planted and
volunteer species ranges from 6 to 9. All 12 vegetation plots exceed the interim requirement of 320
stems per acre, and herbaceous cover is becoming well established throughout the site. Volunteer
woody species consist of American elm (Ulmus americana), boxelder (Acer negundo), and persimmon
(Diosypros virginiana). Though boxelder volunteers are dominant in a few of the vegetation plots,
competition among all the species as they mature should limit any monocultures from forming;
however, during the monitoring period, Wildlands will continue to monitor species variability and
dominance throughout the Site and address monocultures, if needed. Refer to Appendix 2 for visual
assessment data and vegetation plot photographs, and Appendix 3 for vegetation plot data.
5.2 Vegetative Areas of Concern and Parcel Maintenance
A visual assessment was conducted throughout the Site on 10/2/2023, and no areas of invasive species
in need of maintenance, areas of low vegetative growth, or areas of easement encroachment. As
previously mentioned in Section 5.1, herbaceous and woody vegetation are becoming well established.
Currently there are a few areas noted, vegetation plots (VP) 2, 6, and 7, where boxelder consists of over
50% of the recorded vegetation, but as previously mentioned, it is anticipated that competition among
the species should limit the formation of monocultures during the monitoring period. Wildlands will
continue to monitor, and adaptive measures will be implemented as needed.
The live stakes that were planted on UT1 to stabilize the erosional areas during construction are thriving.
Leaf emergence was observed from the majority of live stakes and are successfully rooting into the
banksides alongside herbaceous vegetation. There are no signs of further erosion. Wildlands does not
anticipate any further action needed in these areas.
Additional adaptive measures will be developed, or appropriate remedial actions will be implemented if
the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria outlined in the Mitigation
Plan. Site maintenance will be performed to correct any identified problems on the Site that have a high
likelihood of affecting project success. Such items include but are not limited to excess tree mortality
caused by fire, flooding, drought, or insects. Any actions implemented will be designed to achieve the
success criteria and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria, as directed by NC
DWR.

Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final Page 5
A full easement boundary inspection will be conducted every monitoring year. In MY1, damaged
easement signs from agricultural activities were observed. Wildlands will repair any damaged signs and
add additional markings along the boundaries where encroachment has occurred. The landowner has
been notified of the easement encroachment, and Wildlands will continue to monitor the easement
boundaries.
5.3 Conclusions
All 12 vegetation plots exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. The Site is
on track to meet the final vegetative success criteria of a stem density of 260 stems per acre and a
species diversity of at least four native tree or shrub species. Desirable volunteer tree species are
thriving, and herbaceous cover is well established throughout the site. The monitoring data shows
positive trends in vegetation establishment and this trajectory is expected to continue.

Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final Page 6
Section 6: 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). 2022. DMS Protection Mechanism Guidance and
Deliverables. Raleigh, NC. April 5, 2022.
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.
Merrit, Katie. 2023. Reply email to Wildlands about a planted species approval. NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR), Raleigh, NC. October X, 2023.
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
Suggs, Kristi. 2023. Email to NCDWR about planted species approval. Wildlands, Charlotte, NC. October
6, 2023.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2023. Running Dog Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Report. DMS,
Charlotte, NC. July 2023.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2023. Running Dog Mitigation Plan. DMS, Charlotte, NC. January 2023.

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables
Union County, NC
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Annual Report
Yadkin River Basin (03040105)
2019 Aerial Photography
S e d g e f i e l d
Sharon b r o o k
Sta r m o u n t
16
16
49
85
Central Ave
Eastwa
y
D
r
B r i e f R d
B
e
a
t
t
i
e
s
F
o
r
d
Rd
Cabarrus Rd
N Graha m St
O l d C oncordRd
Lawyers
R d
MonroeRd
H arris b ur g R d
S
a
m
B
l
a
c
k
R
d
A lbemarle R d
I-
4
8
5
I
n
n
e
r
I
-
4
8
5
O
u
t
e
r
Mecklenburg
N o r th C h a r l o tt e
I d l e w i l d
Gr o v e P a r k
P i n e R i d g e
M i n t H i l l
C h a r l o t t e
84
16
51
218
601
601
S
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
R
d
Weddington Rd
R
e
a
Rd
A irp o rt R d
Idlew
i
l
d
R
d
Idle
wild
R
d
M ill G r o v e Rd
OldCharlotte
H
w
y
Morgan
Mill
Rd
N
C-21
8
W
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
R
d
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
R
d
Pot
t
e
r
R
d
Fairvi e w R d
Park
Rd
Carm elRd
S
a
r
d
i
s
R
d
M
o
n
r
o
e
R
d
W
R
o
o
s
e
v
elt
Bl
v
d
W a x h a w H w y
C
o
n
c
o
r
d
H
w
y
M
o
nroe
E
x
p
y
I-4 8 5 O u t e r
Union
W e d d i n g t o n
S t a l l i n g s U n i o n v i l l e
W e s l e y C h a p e l
L a k e P a r k
S e l w y n P a r k
I n d i a n T r a i l
M a t t h e w s
M o n r o e
601
^_
¹0 31.5 Miles
Conservation Easement
Project Parcel
^_Running Dog Project Site
^_
601
E H i g h w a y 2 1 8
W Lawyers Rd
Cha r lo tte
Nationa l Golf
Club
F a i r v i e w
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,
and continue onto NC-218 E/Fairview Rd for 4 miles. At the
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.2019 Aerial Photography
Union County, NC
Figure 2. Project Service Area Map
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Annual Report
Yadkin River Basin (03040105)
2019 Aerial Photography
Pence
R
d
Rob i n s o n Churc h R d
Law
yers Rd
H
o
o
d
R
d
P
l
o
t
t
R
d
Albem a r l e R d
Plaza Road
P ark
Grov e P a r k
M a r l w o o d A c r e
P
l
e
a
s
a
ntPlains Rd
C h e s t n u t L n
P
o
t
t
er
Rd
Idle
w
i
l
d
R
d
L
e
b
a
n
o
n
R
d
E
J
o
h
n
S
t
E
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
B
l
v
d
S t a l l i n g s
M a t t h e w s
601
WBrief Rd
B r i e f R d
Cabarrus Rd
A
r
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
Church
R
d
H a rris b ur g R d
Old Camden
R
d
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
C
h
u
r
c
h
Rd
R o cky R i v e r R d
Flowes Sto re R d
Lo w er R o cky River
Rd
B
e
t
h
e
l
A
v
e
Ext
A l b e m a r l e Rd
High w a y 2 4 2 7 E
I
-
4
8
5
I
n
n
e
r
I
-
485
Inner
I-
4
8
5
I
n
n
e
r
P i n e R i d g e
W i l g r o v e
P i o n e e r M i l l s
C a b a r r u s
B r i e f
M i n t H i l l
218
74
S te v e n s M illRd
W Unio n v ille I n d i a n Tr a i l R d
M ill G r o v e R d
Old
M
o
n
r
o
e
R
d
W
L
a
w
yersRd
Matthe w s Mint Hill R d
C
o
n
c
o
r
d
H
w
y
M
o
n
r
o
e
E
x
p
y
I-4 8 5 O u t e r
U n i o n v i l l eLakePark
H e m b y B r i d g e
F a i r v i e w
S t o u t s
F o w l e r
C r o s s r o a d s
I n d i a n T r a i l
B a k e r s
601
MtPleasant
RdS
W M a i n S t
M i d l a n d
200
E H i ghway218
M organ MillRd
Lake Twitty
^_
¹0 21 Miles
County Boundary
HUC 03040105030020
Riparian Buffer Credits Service Area
Goose Creek Watershed
^_Running Dog Parcel Location
Union County, NC
Figure 3. Project Component/Asset Map
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Annual Report
Yadkin River Basin (03040105)
2019 Aerial Photography
^_
!5
!5
!5
E
C
1
77'
95'
82'
76'
89'
U
T
1
A
EC
2
U
T
1
U
T
1
U
T
2
A
U
T
2
E
C
3
59'
I n d i a n T r ail F air vie w R d
Brent Haigler Rd
Indian
TrailFairvie
w
B r e n t H a i g l e r R d
I n d i a n T r ail F air vie w R d
Brent Haigler Rd
Indian
TrailFairvie
w
B r e n t H a i g l e r R d
¹0 350175 Feet
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
!5 Utility Poles
2019 Aerial Photography
Table 1. Buffer Project Areas and Assets Table
DMS Project No. 100210
Project Area
N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
Credit Type Location
Subject?
(enter NO if
ephemeral or
ditch)
Feature Type Mitigation Activity
Min-Max
Buffer
Width (ft)
Feature Name Total Area
(ft2)
Total (Creditable)
Area of Buffer
Mitigation (ft2)
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
(lbs)
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: P
(lbs)
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):648,310 648,310 643,755.500
Total Buffer (ft2):648,310 648,310
Total Nutrient Offset (ft2):0 N/A
Total Ephemeral Area (ft2) for Credit:72,317 72,317
Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ft2):164,529 11.0%Ephemeral Reaches as % TABM
Enter Preservation Credits Below Total Eligible for Preservation (ft2):216,103 1.1%Preservation as % TABM
Credit Type Location Subject?Feature Type Mitigation Activity
Min-Max
Buffer
Width (ft)
Feature Name Total Area
(sf)
Total (Creditable)
Area for Buffer
Mitigation (ft2)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit
Final
Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Riparian
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 (ft2):9,806 9,806
Square Feet Credits
566,884 566,884.000
72,317 72,317.000
9,109 4,554.500
9,806 980.600
29,139 0.000
687,255 644,736.100
Square Feet Credits
Nitrogen:0.000
Phosphorus:0.000
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Total Riparian Buffer:
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Yadkin - Goose Creek
N/A
N/A
Mitigation Totals
Restoration:
Enhancement:
Preservation:
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
Restoration-Ephemeral:
Other Streams & Ephemeral Channels:
Nutrient Offset:0
Mitigation Totals
Table 2. Activity and Reporting History Table
DMS Project No. 100210
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
January 2023
March 2023
June 2023
November 2023
December 2024
December 2025
December 2026
December 2027
Table 3. Project Contact Table
DMS Project No. 100210
Project Manager (POC)
---
Data Collection Complete
2026
2025
2024
October 2023
March 2023
Monitoring Performers (POC)
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Kristi Suggs, 704.332.7754, Ext. 110
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
McMinnville, TN 37110
825 Maude Etter Rd.Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes & Son Nursery
Planting Contractor
Freemont, NC 27830
150 Old Black Creek Rd
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Andrea Eckardt, 704.332.7754, Ext. 101
704.332.7754
Designers Charlotte, NC 28203
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Year 4 Monitoring Report Date
Year 5 Monitoring Report Date
Year 2 Monitoring Report Date
Mitigation Plan Date
Bare Roots Planting
Year 1 Monitoring Report Date
As-Built & Baseline Monitoring Document
Year 3 Monitoring Report Date
---
Activity or Report
2027
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes Table
DMS Project No. 100210
Table 5. Planted Tree Species Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
DMS Project No. 100210
Common Name Number Planted % of Total
River birch 1,427 15%
Swamp chestnut oak1
Northern red oak1
Willow oak 1,427 15%
Sycamore 1,237 13%
American elm 1,142 12%
Boxelder 951 10%
Persimmon 951 10%
Elderberry 476 5%
Black cherry 476 5%
Common Name Number Planted % of Total
Black Willow 50 20%
Silky Willow 100 40%
Silky Dogwood 100 40%
Types of Credits Riparian Buffer
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
Project Name
Total Credits (BMU)644,736.100
Project Information
Diospyros virginiana
Sambucus canadensis
Prunus serotina
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Running Dog Mitigation Site
03040105030020
Goose Creek Watershed – Yadkin River Basin
35.130655, -80.549511
08655, 0368
River Basin
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
1,427 15%Quercus rubra
1Northern red oak stems were inadvertently mislabeled, bundled, and planted as swamp chestnut oak during the post-construction
buffer planting in March 2023; therefore, the number of planted stems of each species is unknown. During the MY1 vegetative data
collection, Wildlands noticed the discrepancy and requested the addition of northern red oak to the Site's planting list. See Section
5.0 in the MY1 report for additional information about the planting error.
Scientific Name
Betula nigra
Quercus michauxii
Quercus phellos
Platanus occidentalis
Scientific Name
Salix sericea
Cornus amomum
Salix nigra
Live Stakes
Ulmus americana
Acer negundo
APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
9
5
6
4
7
2
3
8
1
11
10
12
EC
1
U
T
1
A
EC
2
U
T
1
U
T
1
U
T
2
A
U
T
2
E
C
3
I n d i a n T r ail F air vie w R d
Brent Haigler Rd
Indian
TrailFairvie
w
B r e n t H a i g l e r R d
PP4
PP7
PP2
PP1
PP6
PP8
PP3
PP5
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
GF Photopoints
Vegetation Plots
Union County, NC
Figure 4. Current Condition Plan View Map
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Annual Report
Yadkin River Basin (03040105)
2019 Aerial Photography
¹0 350175 Feet
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Planted Acreage 14.67
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(Ac)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
material.0.1 0 0 0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 0 0 0%
0 0 0%
Areas of Poor Growth
Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 Ac 0 0 0%
0 0 0%
Date last assessed: 10/2/2023
Easement Acreage 15.78
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of
Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at
map scale).1,000 0 0 0%
Easement
Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at
map scale).none 0 0 0%
Date last assessed: 10/2/2023
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Total
Cumulative Total

SITE OVERVIEW PHOTOGRAPHS

Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data - Site Overview Photographs

PP1 – UT1 LOOKING UPSTREAM (10/2/2023) PP1 – UT1 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (10/2/2023)

PP2 – UT1 LOOKING UPSTREAM (10/2/2023) PP2 – UT1 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (10/2/2023)

PP3 – UT1 UPSTREAM (10/2/2023) PP3 – UT1 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (10/2/2023)
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data - Site Overview Photographs

PP4 – UT1 LOOKING UPSTREAM (10/2/2023) PP4 – UT1 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (10/2/2023)

PP5 – UT1 LOOKING UPSTREAM (10/2/2023) PP5 – UT1 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (10/2/2023)

PP6 – EC3 LOOKING UPSTREAM (10/2/2023) PP6 – EC3 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (10/2/2023)
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data - Site Overview Photographs

PP7 – UT2 LOOKING UPSTREAM (10/2/2023) PP7 – UT2 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (10/2/2023)

PP8 – UT2 LOOKING UPSTREAM (10/2/2023) PP8 – UT2 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (10/2/2023)

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs

VEG PLOT 1 (10/2/2023) VEG PLOT 2 (10/2/2023)

VEG PLOT 3 (10/2/2023) VEG PLOT 4 (10/2/2023)

VEG PLOT 5 (10/2/2023) VEG PLOT 6 (10/2/2023)
Running Dog Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs
VEG PLOT 7 (10/2/2023) VEG PLOT 8 (10/2/2023)
VEG PLOT 9 (10/2/2023) VEG PLOT 10 (10/2/2023)
VEG PLOT 11 (10/2/2023) VEG PLOT 12 (10/2/2023)
APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Plot
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 11
Vegetation Plot 12
*Success Criteria Met is based on the MY3 interim vegetative requirement of 320 stems per acre.
100%
Success Criteria Met *Tract Mean
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 8a. Planted and Total Stem Counts Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
14.67
2023-03-29
NA
NA
2023-10-02
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 5
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 2 2 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 3
Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU 2 2 1 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 3 4 2 3 1 2 2 4 6 2 2
Sum Performance Standard 12 13 12 15 11 14 14 14 14 16 12 14
13 15 14 14 16 14
526 607 567 567 648 567
6 8 7 7 8 7
31 20 29 21 38 36
2 3 3 3 3 4
0 0 0 0 0 0
13 15 14 14 16 14
526 607 567 567 648 567
6 8 7 7 8 7
31 20 29 21 38 36
2 3 3 3 3 4
0 0 0 0 0 0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
4). Species identifications were corrected from the previous monitoring year.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being
proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not
approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved,
post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/
Shrub
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Veg Plot 5 F4 Veg Plot 6 FIndicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F4 Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F4 Veg Plot 4 F4
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
% Invasives
Table 8b. Planted and Total Stem Counts Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
14.67
2023-03-29
NA
NA
2023-10-02
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 2 5 1 5 2 2 2 2
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 3 3 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 4 4
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
Sum Performance Standard 14 19 15 19 10 10 13 13 12 12 12 13
19 19 10 13 12 13
769 769 405 526 486 526
8 7 6 7 7 7
26 26 20 31 25 31
4 3 3 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
19 19 10 13 12 13
769 769 405 526 486 526
8 7 6 7 7 7
26 26 20 31 25 31
4 3 3 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
4). Species identifications were corrected from the previous monitoring year.
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved,
post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being
proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not
approved (italicized).
Veg Plot 11 F4 Veg Plot 12 F4Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 7 F4 Veg Plot 8 F4 Veg Plot 9 F4 Veg Plot 10 F4
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Tree/
ShrubScientific Name Common Name
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Plot size (ACRES)
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Table 9. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
526 2 6 0 607 3 8 0 567 3 7 0
567 2 7 0 607 2 9 0 607 2 8 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
567 3 7 0 648 3 8 0 567 4 7 0
607 3 8 0 648 2 9 0 688 3 8 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
769 4 8 0 769 3 7 0 405 3 6 0
688 3 9 0 607 2 7 0 607 2 8 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
526 2 7 0 486 2 7 0 526 2 7 0
648 2 8 0 648 2 8 0 567 2 8 0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Monitoring Year 2
Veg Plot 12 F
Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F
Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Veg Plot 4 F
Table 10. Vegetation Height Data Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X (m)Y (m)Height (Ft)Vigor
1 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 0.3 8.3 2.0 4
1 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 4.2 8.6 1.9 4
1 Ulmus americana American elm 3.6 6.7 3.1 4
1 Quercus phellos Willow oak 3.1 4.9 1.4 4
1 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 2.6 2.9 2.5 4
1 Acer negundo Boxelder 2.0 1.0 1.4 4
1 Betula nigra River birch 5.3 0.5 Dead 0
1 Ulmus americana American elm 6.0 2.2 1.0 4
1 Betula nigra River birch 8.8 4.0 Missing
1 Ulmus americana American elm 7.6 6.1 2.1 4
1 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 8.4 7.9 1.2 4
1 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 8.8 9.5 2.2 4
1 Quercus phellos Willow oak 9.7 2.5 0.6 4
1 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 9.0 0.5 0.4 4
1 Ulmus americana American elm 3.5 9.1 1.7 4
2 Prunus serotina Black cherry 1.0 6.1 Dead 0
2 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 2.4 7.6 1.9 4
2 Betula nigra River birch 3.7 9.3 2.4 4
2 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 8.8 9.8 1.7 4
2 Quercus phellos Willow oak 7.6 8.5 1.7 4
2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 6.6 7.1 4.4 4
2 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 5.6 5.7 3.0 4
2 Acer negundo Boxelder 4.4 4.3 4.2 4
2 Quercus phellos Willow oak 3.2 3.2 1.7 4
2 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 2.0 1.8 1.8 4
2 Ulmus americana American elm 0.9 0.6 2.0 4
2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 5.6 0.9 6.6 4
2 Ulmus americana American elm 7.1 2.1 2.2 4
2 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 8.3 3.6 Dead 0
2 Acer negundo Boxelder 9.4 5.0 Dead 0
2 Acer negundo Boxelder 5.4 5.2 3.9 4
2 Acer negundo Boxelder 4.5 4.2 3.9 4
2 Ulmus americana American elm 4.7 3.5 2.9 4
1Species identifications were corrected from the previous monitoring year.
Table 10. Vegetation Height Data Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X (m)Y (m)Height (Ft)Vigor
3 Betula nigra River birch 3.7 0.8 Dead 0
3 Prunus serotina Black cherry 5.3 0.7 2.8 4
3 Prunus serotina Black cherry 7.2 0.5 1.5 4
3 Betula nigra River birch 8.9 0.5 Dead 0
3 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 9.0 4.1 Dead 0
3 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7.6 4.1 5.6 4
3 Acer negundo Boxelder 6.2 4.1 4.3 4
3 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 4.5 3.6 2.2 4
3 Betula nigra River birch 2.4 3.5 Dead 0
3 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 0.8 3.2 3.7 4
3 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 0.6 7.1 5.7 4
3 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 2.7 7.6 1.6 4
3 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 4.9 8.2 2.1 4
3 Quercus phellos Willow oak 6.6 8.3 1.8 4
3 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 8.6 8.3 5.5 4
3 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 9.5 3.5 2.1 4
3 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 9.4 3.4 2.1 4
3 Ulmus americana American elm 1.6 7.9 3.2 4
4 Ulmus americana American elm 4.0 0.8 3.2 4
4 Betula nigra River birch 5.7 1.3 3.6 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7.3 1.6 4.4 4
4 Acer negundo Boxelder 9.3 3.0 3.4 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 9.1 7.8 2.1 4
4 Ulmus americana American elm 7.5 6.9 3.0 4
4 Prunus serotina Black cherry 5.9 6.0 Dead 0
4 Betula nigra River birch 4.4 5.2 3.3 4
4 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 2.9 4.2 3.1 4
4 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 1.6 3.2 1.6 4
4 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 0.3 2.1 2.3 4
4 Betula nigra River birch 0.6 6.8 1.2 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 2.0 7.7 2.7 4
4 Quercus phellos Willow oak 3.7 8.5 0.7 4
4 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 5.2 9.1 1.9 4
1Species identifications were corrected from the previous monitoring year.
Table 10. Vegetation Height Data Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X (m)Y (m)Height (Ft)Vigor
5 Prunus serotina Black cherry 1.1 0.6 2.3 4
5 Ulmus americana American elm 0.8 2.3 2.8 4
5 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 0.6 4.3 2.9 4
5 Ulmus americana American elm 0.4 6.3 3.6 4
5 Ulmus americana American elm 0.4 8.2 2.6 4
5 Quercus phellos Willow oak 3.8 8.2 Dead 0
5 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 3.7 6.4 4.7 4
5 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 4.0 4.6 2.5 4
5 Quercus phellos Willow oak 4.5 2.5 1.3 4
5 Betula nigra River birch 5.0 0.8 3.5 4
5 Acer negundo Boxelder 8.8 0.3 Dead 0
5 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 8.4 2.0 3.8 4
5 Ulmus americana American elm 8.0 4.0 2.7 4
5 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 7.6 6.0 2.8 4
5 Quercus phellos Willow oak 7.5 7.8 0.5 4
5 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 7.6 9.4 2.5 4
5 Ulmus americana American elm 6.8 4.0 1.9 4
5 Ulmus americana American elm 1.1 1.1 2.1 4
6 Acer negundo Boxelder 1.9 1.2 5.9 4
6 Quercus phellos Willow oak 1.7 3.3 Dead 0
6 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 1.7 5.2 4.6 4
6 Acer negundo Boxelder 1.5 7.2 3.6 4
6 Betula nigra River birch 1.3 9.2 6.4 4
6 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 5.0 9.9 0.8 4
6 Prunus serotina Black cherry 5.3 8.8 Dead 0
6 Betula nigra River birch 5.4 6.8 Missing
6 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 5.6 4.5 4.0 4
6 Prunus serotina Black cherry 5.7 2.3 3.3 4
6 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 5.8 0.4 3.4 4
6 Ulmus americana American elm 9.4 0.8 1.2 4
6 Ulmus americana American elm 9.3 2.5 3.0 4
6 Acer negundo Boxelder 9.2 4.0 5.1 4
6 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 9.1 5.8 5.1 4
6 Betula nigra River birch 9.0 7.6 Dead 0
6 Quercus phellos Willow oak 8.8 9.5 Dead 0
6 Acer negundo Boxelder 5.4 6.1 3.0 4
6 Acer negundo Boxelder 3.0 1.4 3.4 4
1Species identifications were corrected from the previous monitoring year.
Table 10. Vegetation Height Data Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X (m)Y (m)Height (Ft)Vigor
7 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 0.5 2.8 1.9 4
7 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 1.8 1.5 2.0 4
7 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 3.1 0.4 1.9 4
7 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 8.2 0.2 3.5 4
7 Acer negundo Boxelder 6.8 1.6 5.3 4
7 Ulmus americana American elm 5.4 3.0 2.4 4
7 Betula nigra River birch 3.9 4.6 Dead 0
7 Prunus serotina Black cherry 2.5 6.0 4.5 4
7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 1.3 7.4 5.8 4
7 Ulmus americana American elm 0.1 8.5 3.7 4
7 Quercus phellos Willow oak 4.2 9.7 Dead 0
7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 5.3 8.6 4.3 4
7 Acer negundo Boxelder 6.5 7.3 4.3 4
7 Betula nigra River birch 7.9 6.0 2.0 4
7 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 9.1 4.7 2.5 4
7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 9.9 3.4 3.4 4
7 Quercus phellos Willow oak 9.5 9.1 Dead 0
7 Acer negundo Boxelder 7.3 7.7 4.7 4
7 Ulmus americana American elm 7.5 7.9 3.0 4
7 Acer negundo Boxelder 2.5 9.5 4.9 4
7 Acer negundo Boxelder 9.2 9.2 5.4 4
7 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 0.8 0.3 2.2 4
8 Quercus phellos Willow oak 2.4 1.4 1.7 4
8 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 2.2 3.4 5.0 4
8 Ulmus americana American elm 2.2 5.3 2.7 4
8 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 2.4 7.3 5.0 4
8 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 2.6 9.2 1.7 4
8 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 5.9 9.0 2.0 4
8 Acer negundo Boxelder 5.5 7.0 3.8 4
8 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 5.5 5.4 2.4 4
8 Ulmus americana American elm 5.4 3.4 2.8 4
8 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 5.4 1.3 3.1 4
8 Quercus phellos Willow oak 8.1 0.8 0.7 4
8 Ulmus americana American elm 8.1 2.8 3.0 4
8 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 8.2 4.8 2.3 4
8 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 8.5 7.2 3.6 4
8 Quercus phellos Willow oak 8.5 9.1 1.9 4
8 Acer negundo Boxelder 2.2 1.9 2.7 4
8 Acer negundo Boxelder 8.0 2.9 3.7 4
8 Acer negundo Boxelder 9.3 4.0 2.5 4
8 Acer negundo Boxelder 2.2 3.9 2.1 4
1Species identifications were corrected from the previous monitoring year.
Table 10. Vegetation Height Data Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X (m)Y (m)Height (Ft)Vigor
9 Acer negundo Boxelder 0.5 4.1 Dead 0
9 Betula nigra River birch 1.3 5.7 Dead 0
9 Ulmus americana American elm 2.7 7.5 2.4 4
9 Betula nigra River birch 3.6 9.2 3.1 4
9 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 8.2 9.9 4.0 4
9 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 7.3 8.1 Dead 0
9 Ulmus americana American elm 6.4 6.8 2.1 4
9 Quercus phellos Willow oak 5.2 5.0 3.1 4
9 Acer negundo Boxelder 4.3 3.3 2.4 4
9 Betula nigra River birch 3.4 1.7 0.4 4
9 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 2.4 0.4 1.9 4
9 Prunus serotina Black cherry 7.1 1.1 Dead 0
9 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 8.1 2.9 4.1 4
9 Betula nigra River birch 8.9 4.6 Dead 0
9 Acer negundo Boxelder 9.9 6.3 2.6 4
10 Quercus phellos Willow oak 3.8 0.3 0.4 4
10 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 5.5 0.3 Dead 0
10 Prunus serotina Black cherry 7.1 0.5 2.3 4
10 Quercus phellos Willow oak 8.9 0.4 3.1 4
10 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 9.0 3.8 2.6 4
10 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7.3 3.7 4.6 4
10 Ulmus americana American elm 5.6 3.7 2.3 4
10 Betula nigra River birch 3.8 3.4 Dead 0
10 Acer negundo Boxelder 2.0 3.4 2.3 4
10 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 0.2 3.2 3.7 4
10 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 0.0 7.3 2.3 4
10 Quercus phellos Willow oak 1.8 7.6 1.8 4
10 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 3.8 7.7 2.0 4
10 Acer negundo Boxelder 5.7 7.6 1.4 4
10 Betula nigra River birch 7.6 7.5 Dead 0
10 Quercus phellos Willow oak 9.5 7.5 1.8 4
1Species identifications were corrected from the previous monitoring year.
Table 10. Vegetation Height Data Table
Running Dog Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100210
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X (m)Y (m)Height (Ft)Vigor
11 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 1.0 2.0 2.0 4
11 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 3.0 2.0 4.4 4
11 Quercus phellos Willow oak 5.0 1.8 0.9 4
11 Betula nigra River birch 7.9 1.7 Dead 0
11 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 9.1 1.9 1.5 4
11 Betula nigra River birch 9.6 5.6 Dead 0
11 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 7.8 5.6 Dead 0
11 Quercus phellos Willow oak 5.5 5.5 Dead 0
11 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 3.6 5.6 3.1 4
11 Betula nigra River birch 1.8 5.7 3.3 4
11 Ulmus americana American elm 0.4 5.8 2.6 4
11 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 0.3 9.4 2.0 4
11 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 2.6 9.4 2.1 4
11 Prunus serotina Black cherry 4.9 9.5 2.6 4
11 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 7.3 9.5 1.6 4
11 Ulmus americana American elm 9.2 9.5 2.6 4
12 Betula nigra River birch 0.4 5.9 Dead 0
12 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 1.0 7.7 2.7 4
12 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 1.4 9.4 2.2 4
12 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 5.8 8.6 1.3 4
12 Prunus serotina Black cherry 4.9 7.1 2.7 4
12 Betula nigra River birch 4.4 5.4 Dead 0
12 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry 3.5 3.8 2.1 4
12 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 2.6 2.0 2.0 4
12 Ulmus americana American elm 2.1 1.1 2.8 4
12 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 8.2 1.0 2.0 4
12 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 7.1 2.5 2.8 4
12 Quercus rubra 1 Northern red oak 8.0 4.0 fee 4
12 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 8.1 5.5 4.2 4
12 Quercus phellos Willow oak 8.4 7.1 3.0 4
12 Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon 3.7 9.4 1.0 4
1Species identifications were corrected from the previous monitoring year.

APPENDIX 4. Correspondence
1
Stephanie Erickson
From:Kristi Suggs
Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 3:09 PM
To:Merritt, Katie
Cc:Phillips, Kelly D; Paul Wiesner ([e-mail]); Andrea Eckardt; Stephanie Erickson
Subject:RE: Running Dog Site - Buffer Mitigation (DWR No. 2022-0550v1 / NCDEQ Contract No. 210202-01)
Hi KaƟe,

We are finalizing the Running Dog MY1 report for submiƩal to DMS, so I wanted to follow‐up on the email that I sent on
Friday Oct. 6th about the planƟng discrepancy. Currently, we are including Quercus rubra (northern red oak) in the
monitoring vegetaƟon plots as an approved species for buffer planƟng, and that the number of the stems documented
in the “Planted Tree Species Table” consists of a mix of both Quercus michauxii (swamp chestnut oak) and Q. rubra, per
the email chain below. If we do not hear from you or someone at NC DWR by the end of the day, Friday, October 20,
2023, we will assume that our documentaƟon is acceptable, and we will finalize the submiƩal to DMS for the draŌ
review. However, if this documentaƟon is found to be unacceptable, please let us know how you would like for us to
document the planƟng discrepancy. Thank you!!

KrisƟ

KrisƟ Suggs | Senior Environmental ScienƟst
O: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
CharloƩe, NC 28203

From: Kristi Suggs
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 12:32 PM
To: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Paul Wiesner ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>;
Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>; Stephanie Erickson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Running Dog Site ‐ Buffer Mitigation (DWR No. 2022‐0550v1 / NCDEQ Contract No. 210202‐01)

Hi KaƟe,

I hope that you are doing well. I have a quesƟon/request about a planted woody tree species at the Running Dog Buffer
MiƟgaƟon Site (DWR No. 2022‐0550v1 / NCDEQ Contract No. 210202‐01). We were out at the Site this week conducƟng
the vegetaƟon plot inventory and found a discrepancy with one of the planted species. It seems that the planƟng
contractor mislabeled and planted some Quercus rubra (Northern red oak) stems in lieu of Quercus michauxii (Swamp
chestnut oak). Unfortunately, we were unable to catch this issue during the baseline monitoring field work because
there were no leaves on the bare root stems during the field data collecƟon. Please note that this discrepancy did not
include all of the Q. michauxii stems. There are some Q. michauxii planted on the Site, but no Q. michauxii were planted
within the monitoring vegetaƟon plots. Therefore, since all the bareroots that were bundled together were labeled as
Q. michauxii, we are not sure of the quanƟty that was planted of each species. We only know that there was a total of
1,427 stems in the bundle. If Q. rubra is approved for inclusion, we will update and document the species approval the
MY1 report and update Table 5 (Planted Tree Species Table) to reflect the addiƟon of Q. rubra. Table 5 will be updated
as follows:
2

Common Name ScienƟfic Name Number Planted % of Total
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 1,427 15% Northern red oak Quercus rubra 

If Q. rubra is not approved for inclusion, please let us know how you would like for us to proceed.

Thank you!!

KrisƟ

KrisƟ Suggs | Senior Environmental ScienƟst
O: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
CharloƩe, NC 28203