20210750 Ver 2_Wicomico_100188_MY1_2023_20240209

ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (MY1)

WICOMICO BUFFER MITIGATION SITE
EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

DMS PROJECT NO.100188
NCDEQ CONTRACT NO. 200209-01
DWR PROJECT NO. 2021-0750 VERSION 2

Tar Pamlico River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03020103
RFP#:16-20200209

Data Collection: September 2023
Submission: January 2024

Prepared for:

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

531 N. Liberty St. + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 + 336-790-6744 + FAX [phone]

January 3, 2024

Emily Dunnigan
Project Manager – Eastern Region
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St
Raleigh, NC 27603

Re: Response to NC DMS Comments on Draft MY1 Report Submittal
Wicomico Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site, Edgecombe County, NC
Tar Pamlico River 03020103
DMS Project No. 100188

Dear Ms. Dunnigan,

Freese and Nichols, Inc. received comments from you on November 20, 2023 on the Wicomico Draft
MY1 report. This letter provides our response to those comments (in blue below).

1. Cover Page: Please update the submission date and page footers to November 2023 or
whichever month is accurate when you submit the final.
❖ The submission date has been updated to reflect the month of final report submittal.
2. Pg. 7, Section 4.1: Based on the data provided it looks like there are a lot of volunteer sweetgum
and red maple. These two species cannot be used to count toward success criteria because of
their ability to rapidly colonize and outcompete the planted stems. When found in large
numbers DMS typically requires these species be thinned to provide better success for planted
stems and to allow greater species diversity. Do you anticipate needing to thin these for planted
trees to survive? Please update the narrative and remove language indicating potential inclusion
of these species for meeting success criteria. American Elm could potentially be counted toward
success but would require approval by DWR since it was not a species included in the approved
mitigation plan.
❖ Reference to potential inclusion of volunteer stems of sweetgum, red maple, and American
elm has been removed from report. The volunteers will be monitored during MY2, and if
additional management is required to reduce stem numbers, this action will be included in
the MY2 report and an appropriate management plan will be submitted to DMS. IF
warranted, FNI will provide a request to include American Elm as an additional approved
species at MY3.
3. Pg. 7, Section 4.1: Multiple areas of invasives were noted in this section and treatment
(mowing/herbicide) will occur in MY2. Do you anticipate needing to replant these areas after
treatment, particularly areas to be mowed? If areas of invasives are not hindering survival of
www.freese.com
Response to DMS Comments – MY1
Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site
Page 2

planted stems, and the invasive species will likely not survive well in shaded conditions, consider
a less destructive approach. Please update the narrative and ensure that any supplemental
plantings will be completed with species from the approved mitigation plan.
❖ No planted woody stems were observed with the areas of sericea lespedeza, and it is not
expected that any volunteer species will colonize those areas as the high stem and foliage
density of the invasive species prevents establishment of other plants. While sericea
lespedeza is predominantly shade intolerant, canopy closure will only reduce the vigor of
the species and will not effectively limit the spread within the understory, particularly along
the edge of the site. Early management, including mechanical removal of the large
aboveground biomass, are critical to reduce spread of the species. Areas of mechanical and
chemical treatment will be replanted with native species seed mix and if woody stem
supplementation is needed, planting will be conducted with approved species from the
mitigation plan.
4. Pg. 7, Section 4.2: Please italicize scientific names.
❖ There are no scientific names in this section. Sericea lespedeza is the common name for
Lespedeza cuneata.
5. Pg. 7, Section 4.2: How tall are the chinaberry volunteers? Depending on their size at the time of
treatment a cut-stump method might work best to limit herbicide impacts to surrounding
desirable vegetation
❖ The chinaberry volunteers were approximately 3 feet tall during MY1. Language has been
updated to include cut-stump method rather than hack and squirt. Either method will be
effective in treating the observed volunteers, and both are preferable to foliar applications,
as they are targeted to only the trees in question and will not be broadcast on adjacent
desirable vegetation.
6. Appendix B, Table 5 & Table 6: Please use the tables provided by the output shiny tool. The
provided tables have been edited making review difficult. For example, VP01 says it has 13
stems, but that includes the invasive chinaberry, and the total stems per acre for the plot is
incorrect. Please also include the provided footnotes with the tables.
❖ Tables have been updated to include the output from the Shiny Tool.
7. Appendix B, Table 5: Though it’s early in monitoring DMS is concerned with plots 4 & 5 and lack
of species diversity. Both plots have greater than 50% of a single species and only 2 species
total. Do you anticipate needing to supplementally plant these areas? Is greater species diversity
and survival represented in the areas outside of the veg plots?
❖ VP 4 and VP 5 will be monitored during MY2, and if species composition is still trending
toward a monoculture, a supplemental planting plan will be created to address the
deficiencies. The species diversity in the northern section of the site are more diverse than
reflected in the plots. An additional random vegetation plot will be added for MY2 to
document conditions outside of VP 4 and VP 5. Section 4.2 has been updated to reflect the
addition of the random plot for MY2.
8. Appendix B, Table 5: Three of the species planted (beautyberry, chinkapin, and spicebush) are
Response to DMS Comments – MY1
Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site
Page 3

no longer surviving in any vegetation plots and some species have very little representation
(water oak, silky dogwood). Are these species surviving on site outside of the vegetation plots? If
supplemental planting is anticipated at any time during the monitoring period, please use
caution using these species if survival is unlikely or use older stock to increase survivability.
❖ Beautyberry has been observed in quantities representative of the percentage in the
planting plan outside of the vegetation plots. Chinkapin and spicebush are relatively sparse
within the site and will not be included in any supplemental planting plans. Water oak were
observed outside of the vegetation plots. Oak species that are planted in an afforestation
scenario have lower heights due to the biology of the species, so many of the stems are still
small and difficult to observe during the growing season. Water oak will only be in small
quantities in any supplemental planting plans for the site.
9. Please provide documentation of fence removal in the MY2 report. Failure to remove the fence
will result in delayed approval to invoice for Task 6.
❖ The fence was removed on December 13, 2023. Photographs of the fenceless area are
attached.
10. DWR has requested raw vegetation data (individual tree heights and species by plot) so they can
get a better idea of tree conditions. The veg plot input tables used in the Shiny App easily fulfill
this need. This should be included in an Appendix.
❖ Raw vegetation data has been included in Appendix C.

We hope that these responses adequately address the NC DMS comments, and we look forward to
working with NC DMS during the next phases of this important project.

Sincerely,

Ian Jewell
Project Manager
[e-mail]

Baseline Monitoring Report

Wicomico Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Edgecombe County, NC

DMS Project No. 100188
DMS Contract No. 200209-01
DWR Project No. 2021-0750 version 2

Tar Pamlico Watershed
HUC 03020103

Prepared for:

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

Prepared by:

Freese and Nichols, Inc.
531 N Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101

This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• 15A NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers.
• 15A NCAC 02B .0703, Nutrient Offset Trading Rule, amended effective September 1, 2010
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.

Contributing Staff:
Bryan Dick, PhD, PE, PH Lead Technical Professional/ Lead Quality Assurance
Ian Jewell, JD Project Manager
Emily Brown, PE, ENV SP, CFM Monitoring Lead
Melissa Mitchell Field Monitoring Team
Annamarie Eustice, EIT Field Monitoring Team
Jason Steele, PhD, PWS Monitoring Report

Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site MY1 Monitoring Report
DMS Project No. 100188 iii January 2024
Contents
Page
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv
1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 PROJECT GOALS ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................ 2
3.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MONITORING PROTOCOLS .................................................... 2
4.0 MONITORING YEAR 1 – RESULTS ............................................................................................ 3
4.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ....................................................................... 3
4.2 MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 4
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 5

Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site MY1 Monitoring Report
DMS Project No. 100188 iv January 2024

Appendices:
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B
Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Shiny Tool Vegetation Plot Input Tables

Figures
Figure 1 Buffer Mitigation Concept Map & Plot Locations
Figure 2 MY1 Buffer Monitoring Areas of Concern

Tables
Description Location
Table 1 Project Attributes Appendix A
Table 2 Planted Tree Species Appendix A
Table 3 Project Areas and Assets Appendix A
Table 4 Monitoring Components Appendix A
Table 5 Vegetation Plot Data Appendix B
Table 6 Vegetation Performance Standards Table Appendix B
Tables 7 - 11 Shiny Tool Input Tables for Vegetation Plots 1-5 Appendix C

Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site MY1 Monitoring Report
DMS Project No. 100188 1 January 2024
1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Wicomico Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site (Site) is a buffer restoration project located approximately
4.5 miles south of Speed and 5 miles east of Tarboro in Edgecombe County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The
Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) and is discussed in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin RBRP. The
Site involves riparian restoration of 3.74 acres along an unnamed tributary of the Tar River (UT1) that
flows adjacent to the site and eventually flows into the Tar River approximately 4.1 river miles
downstream. Based upon the as-built survey, the Site is expected to generate 162,804.000 riparian buffer
credits in the Tar-Pamlico 03020103 hydrologic unit code (HUC) (Appendix A, Table 3).
Prior to planting, the buffer restoration area was mainly used to produce cotton and soybeans. The
drainage culvert that was located in the southern portion of the Site was removed during site preparation
activities and any associated drainage swales were graded and disked to remove concentrated flow areas
within the riparian buffer area. The Site was subsoiled and disked to reduce soil compaction, and the area
was immediately seeded with a native seed mix. The first seeding was to provide a seed bank, but it was
anticipated that the broadleaf herbicide used for the previous small grain row crop would be detrimental
to the 2022 seeding. Thus, 1/3 of the seed mix was held till 2023 seeding date to improve survivability.
Areas with poor herbaceous cover were sown with additional seed in March 2023.
Riparian area restoration involved the planting of native tree and shrub species along the riparian corridor.
The species composition planted was selected based on the community type, observed species in riparian
areas adjacent to the Site, wildlife habitat goals, best professional judgement on species establishment
and anticipated successional vegetation changes resulting from changes in Site conditions following
project implementation. Woody species were planted at a density sufficient to meet the perform ance
standards outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees per acre at the end of five years. No one tree
species was greater than 50% of the established stems. Planting was completed on March 18, 2022. The
planting date was selected at the request of the landowner, which was prior to the approval of the final
mitigation plan. Even though planting was conducted in the spring of 2022, monitoring activities for
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) were conducted in September 2023.
Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix A) provide more detailed Site background information. Additional project
history, location, and design are presented in the Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring
Report (Freese and Nichols, Inc., 2023).
1.2 PROJECT GOALS
The major goals of the riparian restoration project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Tar-Pamlico River Basin by creating a functional riparian corridor and restoring the
riparian area.

Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site MY1 Monitoring Report
DMS Project No. 100188 2 January 2024
This buffer restoration project will reduce sediment and nutrient loading, provide and improve terrestrial
and in stream habitats, and improve stream and bank stability. The area surrounding the streams was
previously agricultural fields, typically used to grow hay, soybeans, and cotton. Restoring up to 100 feet
of vegetative buffer along the channels has removed the crops and fertilizer inputs within the project
area. The restored floodplain areas will assist in filtering sediment during high rainfall events. The
establishment of riparian areas will create shading to minimize thermal heating. Finally, invasive
vegetation will be treated as needed within the Site and the newly planted native vegetation will provide
cover and food for wildlife. Specific enhancements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined
below.
❖ Decrease nutrient inputs from on and off-site by filtering runoff from agricultural fields through
restored native buffer zones.
❖ Sediment from on and off-site sources will be deposited on restored floodplain areas where native
vegetation will slow overland flow velocities.
❖ Remove areas of flow concentration and allow overland flow velocities to further slow by entering
native vegetation buffer.
❖ Permanently protect the Site by establishing a conservation easement on the Site that will protect
the riparian area in perpetuity.
Mitigation credits are presented in Table 3 in Appendix A and are based upon the as-built survey included
in the Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Report (Freese and Nichols, Inc., 2023).
2.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Riparian buffer restoration was accomplished in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC
02B .0295). All areas within 100+ linear feet of the top of bank of the subject stream as measured from
top of bank landward were planted and devoted to generating riparian buffer mitigation credits.
Mitigation credits generated are listed in Table 3 and are based upon the DWR Buffer Mitigation
Calculation Tool v3 (October 2020) (Appendix A).
3.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MONITORING PROTOCOLS
The performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the Wicomico
Buffer Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan (Freese and Nichols, Inc., 2022), guidance documents outlined in
RFP 16-20200209 and the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295), and the NC DMS Riparian
Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline & Annual Monitoring Report Template, Version 2.0 (May 2017).
Annual monitoring and semi-annual Site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project.

Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site MY1 Monitoring Report
DMS Project No. 100188 3 January 2024
The buffer restoration project has been assigned specific performance criteria for vegetation.
Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the five year post-construction monitoring period. The
monitoring period will extend for five years beyond the completion of construction or until performance
criteria have been met.
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 species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of stems. Native hardwood
volunteer species may be included to meet the final performance standard of 260 stems per acre.
Methodology for annual monitoring is presented in the Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site Baseline
Monitoring Report (Freese and Nichols, Inc., 2023).
4.0 MONITORING YEAR 1 – RESULTS
4.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
The MY1 vegetation assessment of 5 vegetation plots was completed on September 27, 2023. Vegetation
monitoring resulted in a sitewide stem density average of 421 planted stems per acre, above the
requirement of 260 trees per acre by MY5. Stem densities in individual monitoring plots ranged from 364
to 486 planted stems per acre with stem counts in individual plots ranging from 9 to 12 stems with an
average of 11 planted stems per plot. Permanent vegetation plots (VP) 1, 2, and 3 met the MY5 success
criteria. The average tree height observed was 3 feet. Appendix B includes vegetation plot photographs
and vegetation plot data. VP 4 and VP 5 had low species diversity in MY1, however, the area around the
plots reflected more woody species diversity. No additional vegetation areas of concern were identified
within the vegetation plots during MY1. Vegetation establishment across the site appears to be on target
to meet success criteria. Several woody vegetation volunteers comprised primarily of red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and American elm (Ulmus americana) were observed in all
the vegetation plots during MY1 field activities. However, the seedlings were below 1 foot in height, and
the species are not included on the approved mitigation plan planting list. The areas with high
concentrations of these species will be monitored in MY2 to determine if additional management
measures are required to meet site species diversity goals.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation
is becoming well established, with only a few areas where herbaceous vegetation remains sparse.
Photographs of these areas, as well as areas of observed invasive species establishment, are included in
Appendix B. Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) was observed in a 14,000 square foot area along the
western boundary of the Site and a 900 square foot area south of VP-01. Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium
vimineum) was observed in an 80 square foot area northwest of VP-03, and several individual saplings of
chinaberry (Melia azedarach) that were approximately 3 feet in height were observed, and one stem was
observed within VP-01. (Figure 2, Appendix A). Given the aggressive growth and large seed bank
production of the sericea lespedeza, stiltgrass, and chinaberry, chemical control and mowing is

Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site MY1 Monitoring Report
DMS Project No. 100188 4 January 2024
recommended until tree canopy closure decreases resource availability for these species. Mowed areas
will be planted with seed mix after treatment and evaluated for woody stem requirements during MY2. If
additional woody stems are needed to meet requirements, all supplemental planting will be completed
with species from the approved mitigation plan. Further management options are outlined in Section 4.2.
Easement boundary markers and signs are clearly visible and in good condition. There are no signs of
encroachment or undocumented concentrated flow in the easement area. The elevated hunting blind
that was present within the easement during baseline monitoring activities was removed after the MY1
site visit, and no other structures are present within the easement area. The fence that was present at
the northern edge of the easement area was removed on December 13, 2023; Appendix B includes
representative photographs of fence removal. Current credible area of buffer mitigation is 3.74 acres
(162,804.000 square feet), resulting in no change of buffer mitigation credits from the 162,804.000
established with the as-built survey.
4.2 MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Sericea lespedeza
Sericea lespedeza is a perennial legume native to Asia and was introduced in the United States in the
1890s for soil conservation and wildlife forage. While originally introduced as wildlife forage, the high
tannin content of the woody stems makes it unpalatable for most wildlife and livestock. It has been a
primary constituent of highway soil stabilization seed mixes, which has resulted in a geographically
extensive seed bank that will remain viable for decades. The complete elimination of the species from
natural areas is extremely difficult due to the large numbers of viable seeds in the surrounding landscape.
The species can tolerate shade; however, vigor is greatly reduced as the tree canopy becomes denser
(Cummings, et al., 2007). Chemical control of the species, particularly with triclopyr for post-emergence
application, has been shown to be an effective method of reducing spread of the species (Farris and
Murray, 2009), however post-emergence herbicide application does not provide a long-term solution to
species management (Sherrill, et al., 2022). Given the concentrated population of the lespedeza observed
at the Site, a mechanical and chemical control approach will be applied. The existing area of lespedeza
will be mowed in the late fall/early winter after seed drop to reduce biomass within the Site, and a pre-
emergence herbicide containing aminocyclopyrachlor (e.g., Streamline) will be applied to the mowed area
in early March. Aminocyclopyrachlor is a selective herbicide that has minimal negative effects on cool and
warm season grasses (Turner, et al., 2023). A triclopyr herbicide (e.g., Crossbow, Garlon 3A) in a 2%
solution will be applied during June to mid-July when lespedeza plants are still vegetative and during early
flowering. All herbicides will be applied by licensed applicators and will adhere to product label
specifications. Areas of sericea lespedeza infestation will be monitored during MY2. Areas of mechanical
and chemical treatment will be replanted with native species seed mix and if woody stem
supplementation is needed, planting will be conducted with approved species from the mitigation plan.

Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site MY1 Monitoring Report
DMS Project No. 100188 5 January 2024
Chinaberry
Chinaberry is a fast-growing tree with allelopathic roots and leaves that can form dense thickets that
crowd out native vegetation. The tree was introduced as a medicinal plant in the late 18th century but has
since spread prolifically throughout riparian areas of southeastern states, spreading primarily from root
sprouts and bird-dispersed seeds (Miller, 2003; Plant Conservation Alliance, 2008). Given the propensity
of the plant to colonize sites quickly, chemical controls will be applied in conjunction with the foliar
treatment of lespedeza at the site. Chinaberry trees will be cut, and a cut-stump application of triclopyr
herbicide (Garlon 3A or Garlon 4) in a 2% solution will be applied during June to mid-July when the trees
are vegetative but before fruiting. Herbicides will be applied by licensed applicators and will adhere to
product label specifications. Areas of chinaberry infestation will be monitored during MY2.
Japanese Stiltgrass
Japanese stiltgrass is an annual grass that was first documented around 1919 in Tennessee and has since
spread to 25 states. Individual plants produce between 100 and 1,000 seeds annually, with seed viability
extending beyond five years (Plant Conservation Alliance, 2007). Chemical control through use of systemic
herbicides is the recommended chemical control for stiltgrass. Treatment in riparian areas should use
glyphosate specifically formulated for aquatic sites to reduce potential stream impacts. A 2% solution of
glyphosate (Rodeo or other formulations for aquatic sites) and a surfactant will be applied in late summer
to identified areas of stiltgrass infestation. Herbicides will be applied by licensed applicators and will
adhere to product label specifications. Areas of Japanese stiltgrass infestation will be monitored during
MY2.
Vegetation Plots 4 and 5
The results of MY1 woody vegetation monitoring indicated that VP 4 and VP 5 had poor species diversity,
as illustrated by the >50% of American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) in VP 4 and swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii) in VP 5. The surrounding area had higher observed species diversity than what was
reflected in the plot data. A random vegetation plot will be included in the area between VP 4 and VP 5
for MY2 to provide additional data to inform vegetation management.
5.0 REFERENCES
Cummings, D.C., Bidwell, T.G., Medlin, C.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Elmore, R.D. and Weir, J.R., 2007. Ecology
and management of Sericea lespedeza. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.
Farris, R.L. and Murray, D.S., 2009. Control of seedling sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) with
herbicides. Invasive Plant Science and Management, 2(4), pp.337-344.
Freese and Nichols, Inc. (2022). Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site – Mitigation Plan. North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), Raleigh, NC.

Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site MY1 Monitoring Report
DMS Project No. 100188 6 January 2024
Freese and Nichols, Inc. (2023). Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site – Baseline (MY0) Monitoring Report.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), Raleigh,
NC.
Lee, Michael T. Peet, Robert K., Steven D. Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2.
Miller, J.H., 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: a field guide for identification and control
[Revised]. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Research Station. 93p., 62.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), 2017.
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline and Annual Monitoring Report Template version 2.0
Plant Conservation Alliance. Fact Sheet: Chinaberry. March 18, 2008.
Plant Conservation Alliance. Fact Sheet: Japanese Stiltgrass. April 9, 2007.
Sherrill, C.W., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Goodman, L.E., Elmore, R.D. and Hamilton, R.G., 2022. Managing an
invasive species while simultaneously conserving native plant diversity. Rangeland Ecology &
Management, 80, pp.87-95.
Turner, M.A., Powell, B.L., Wade GeFellers, J., Bones, J.T., Marshall, S.G. and Harper, C.A., 2023. Sericea
lespedeza control with postemergence and preemergence herbicide applications in fields managed for
northern bobwhite. Wildlife Society Bulletin, p.e1442.

Appendix A

Figures and Tables

0 350175Feet
±
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Figure 1
Buffer Mitigation Map and Plot Locations
VP-01
VP-02
VP-03
VP-04
VP-05
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site
Edgecombe County, NC
Perennial Stream
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Conservation Easement Boundary
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credits
UT-1
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

Y
e
a
r

1
Ar
e
a
s

o
f

C
o
n
c
e
r
n

a
n
d

P
l
o
t

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Path: H:\ENVIRONMENTAL\Working\MNM working\wicomico\Wicomico_figs.aprx
Wi
c
o
m
i
c
o

B
u
f
f
e
r

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Ed
g
e
c
o
m
b
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
C
EX
H
I
B
I
T
1
I
VP-01 VP-02 VP-03 VP-04
VP-05
NC CGIA, Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, State of North Carolina DOT, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin,
SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA
Legend
Perennial Stream
Bare Areas
Invasive Species Areas
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Conservation Easement Boundary08016040Feet
Patch of Sericea
lespedeza
See Photo 6
900 sq feet
Sparsely Vegetated
Area
See Photo 3
250 sq feet
Chinaberry
scattered along
tree line
See Photo 7
3,500 sq feet
Sparsely Vegetated
Area
See Photo 2
350 sq feet
Patch of Japanese
stiltgrass
See Photo 5
80 sq feet
Patch of Sericea
lespedeza
See Photo 4
14,000 sq feet
Sparsely Vegetated
Area
See Photo 1
500 sq feet
Table 1. Project attributes for the Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site, Year 1 Monitoring (MY1), 2023.
Project Name Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site
River Basin Tar Pamlico
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit/Credit Service
Area 03020103
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03020103010010
NCDWR River Sub-basin Lower Tar
Geographic Location (Lat/ Long DD) 35.90712,-77.44034
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG) 1769, 391
Total Credits (BMU) 162,804.000
Type of Credits
Riparian Buffer with flexibility to convert into nutrient
offsets
Mitigation Plan Date February 2022
Initial Planting Date March 2022
Baseline Report Date May 2023
MY1 Report Date November 2023
MY2 Report Date November 2024
MY 3 Report Date November 2025
MY 4 Report Date November 2026
MY 5 Report Date November 2027

Table 2. Planted tree species for the Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site, Year 1 Monitoring (MY1), 2023.
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/
Shrub Quantity %
Composition
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 325 16%
Callicarpa americana American beautyberry Shrub 152 7%
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub 110 5%
Lindera benzoin Spicebush Shrub 175 9%
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 194 9%
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak Tree 330 16%
Quercus nigra Water oak Tree 220 11%
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry Shrub 109 5%
Castanea pumila Allegheny Chinkapin Shrub 110 6%
Diospyros virginiana American persimmon Tree 330 16%
Table 3. Project areas and assets for the Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site, Year 1 Monitoring (MY1), 2023.
Tar-Pamlico 03020103 Project Area
19.16394 N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
297.54099 P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
Credit Type Location
Subject?
(enter NO if
ephemeral
or ditch 1)
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 Stream A 162,804 162,804 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 162,804 Yes 8,495.330 547.165
Totals (ft2): 162,804 162,804 162,804.000 8,495.330 547.165
Total Buffer (ft2): 162,804 162,804
Total Nutrient Offset (ft2): 0 N/A

Total Ephemeral Area (ft2) for Credit: 0 0
Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ft2): 40,701 0.0% Ephemeral Reaches as % TABM
Enter Preservation Credits Below Total Eligible for Preservation (ft2): 54,268 0.0% 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 —
Preservation Area Subtotals (ft2): 0 0
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits
Restoration: 162,804 162,804.000
Enhancement: 0 0.000
Preservation: 0 0.000
Total Riparian Buffer: 162,804 162,804.000
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits
Nutrient
Offset:
Nitrogen: 0 0.000
Phosphorus: 0.000

Table 4. Monitoring components for Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site, Year 1 Monitoring (MY1), 2023.
Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity Frequency
Vegetation CVS Level 2 Quadrant 5 Annual
Visual Assessment Yes Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation Annual
Project Boundary Annual

Appendix B

Vegetation Plot Data

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Data for the Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site (MY1)

Planted Acreage 3.74
Date of Initial Plant 3/18/2022

Date(s) of Supplemental
Plant(s) NA
Date(s) Mowing NA
Date of Current Survey 2023-09-27
Plot size (ACRES) 0.0247

Scientific
Name Common Name Tree/Shrub Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total

Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation
Plan
Cornus
amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 3 3

Diospyros
virginiana
common
persimmon Tree FAC 4 4 1 3 5 4 4

Platanus
occidentalis
American
sycamore Tree FACW 4 4 2 1 2 6

Quercus
michauxii
swamp chestnut
oak Tree FACW 3 3 3 3 5 1 7
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1 1

Quercus
pagoda cherrybark oak Tree FACW 1 1 3 3
Sum Performance
Standard 12 12 5 9 6 12 2 11 5 11

Invasives Melia
azedarach Chinaberrytree Shrub UPL 1

Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count 12 9 12 11 11
Stems/Acre 486 364 486 405 364
Species Count 4 4 4 2 2

Dominant Species Composition
(%) 31 33 42 55 64
Average Plot Height (ft.) 4 3 2 3 3
% Invasives 8 0 0 0 0
Table 5. Vegetation Plot Data for the Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site (MY1)

Post
Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count 12 9 12 11 11
Stems/Acre 486 364 486 405 364
Species Count 4 4 4 2 2

Dominant Species Composition
(%) 31 33 42 55 64
Average Plot Height (ft.) 4 3 2 3 3
% Invasives 8 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.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those specie s 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, w hereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"
includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 6. Summary of Vegetation Performance Standards for the Wicomico Buffer Site (MY1)
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table

Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/
Ac.
Av. Ht.
(ft)
#
Species
%
Invasives
Stems/
Ac.
Av. Ht.
(ft)
#
Species
%
Invasives
Stems/
Ac.
Av. Ht.
(ft)
#
Species % Invasives
Monitoring
Year 7
Monitoring
Year 5
Monitoring
Year 3
Monitoring
Year 2
Monitoring
Year 1 486 4 4 8 364 3 4 0 486 2 4 0
Monitoring
Year 0 364 2 3 10 364 2 4 0 364 1 4 0

Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F
Stems/
Ac.
Av. Ht.
(ft)
#
Species
%
Invasives
Stems/
Ac.
Av. Ht.
(ft)
#
Species
%
Invasives
Monitoring
Year 7
Monitoring
Year 5
Monitoring
Year 3
Monitoring
Year 2
Monitoring
Year 1 405 3 2 0 364 3 2 0
Monitoring
Year 0 364 2 2 0 324 2 2 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.
Areas of Concern
Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site
Year 1 (MY1) 2023

Photo 1. Sparsely vegetated
area near the southern
boundary of easement.

Area has been noted and will
be monitored during MY2.
Photo 2. Sparsely vegetated
area near middle of easement.

Area has been noted and will
be monitored during MY2.

Areas of Concern
Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site
Year 1 (MY1) 2023

Photo 3. Sparsely vegetated
area near the northern
boundary of the easement.

Area has been noted and will
be monitored during MY2.

Photo 4. Patch of Invasive
Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza
cuneata) adjacent to VP-04.
Approximately 14,000 square
feet.

Management tasks have been
detailed in the MY1 report.
Areas of Concern
Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site
Year 1 (MY1) 2023

Photo 5. Patch of Invasive
Japanese stiltgrass
(Microstegium vimineum) near
the middle of the easement.
Approximately 80 square feet.

Management tasks have been
detailed in the MY1 report.

Photo 6. Patch of Invasive
Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza
cuneata) near the northern
boundary of the easement.
Approximately 900 square feet.

Management tasks have been
detailed in the MY1 report.

Areas of Concern
Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site
Year 1 (MY1) 2023

Photo 7. Chinaberry (Melia
azedarach) scattered
throughout the western tree
line in the northern terminus of
the easement. Approximately
3,500 square feet.

Management tasks have been
detailed in the MY1 report.

Photo 8. Pile of barbed wire
during active fence removal on
December 13, 2023.

Areas of Concern
Wicomico Buffer Mitigation Site
Year 1 (MY1) 2023

Photo 9. Previous location of
the barbed wire fence.

Appendix C

Shiny Tool Vegetation Plot Input Tables

Table 7. Shiny Tool Input Table for Vegetation Plot 1
Plot ID Scientific Name Performance Standard Approval Planted or Volunteer? X Coordinate (m) Y Coordinate (m) MY0 Height MY1 Height Map_ID
1 Cornus amomum Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.06 0.17 0.7 1 VP1-01
1 Cornus amomum Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.95 3.94 0.8 1.3 VP1-04
1 Cornus amomum Approved Mit Plan Planted 2.59 5.94 0.7 1 VP1-07
1 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Planted 2.68 2.18 1.2 1.6 VP1-02
1 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Planted 2.41 5.5 2 4 VP1-05
1 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Planted 2.82 5.47 2 4 VP1-06
1 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Planted 0.78 1.55 1 1.6 VP1-12
1 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Planted 4.74 5.63 3 6 VP1-08
1 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Planted 6.74 6.85 3.8 7 VP1-09
1 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Planted 7.53 3.28 4.6 10 VP1-10
1 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Planted 6.51 1.28 3.7 8 VP1-11
1 Quercus nigra Approved Mit Plan Planted 8.33 4.98 1.2 1.6 VP1-03
1 Melia azedarach Not Approved - Invasive or Exotic Volunteer 1 3 VP1-13

Table 8. Shiny Tool Input Table for Vegetation Plot 2
Plot
ID Scientific Name Performance Standard Approval Planted or
Volunteer? X Coordinate (m) Y Coordinate (m) MY0 Height MY1 Height Map_ID
2 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Planted 7.49 8.91 1.5 2.8 VP2-04
2 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 5.86 7.64 1.5 2.8 VP2-05
2 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 0.51 2.31 1.5 2.8 VP2-08
2 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 5.73 1.94 2.7 4 VP2-02
2 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 8.33 4.98 3.5 7 VP2-03
2 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.38 0.64 1.5 2.8 VP2-01
2 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.37 6.55 2.4 3.4 VP2-06
2 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.79 7.76 2 3 VP2-07
2 Quercus pagoda Approved Mit Plan Planted 0.21 8.51 1 1.8 VP2-09

Table 9. Shiny Tool Input Table for Vegetation Plot 3
Plot ID Scientific Name Performance Standard Approval Planted or Volunteer? X Coordinate (m) Y Coordinate (m) MY0 Height MY1 Height Map_ID
3 Quercus pagoda Approved Mit Plan Planted 5.56 5.38 1 2 VP3-02
3 Quercus pagoda Approved Mit Plan Planted 3.54 4.67 1 2 VP3-03
3 Quercus pagoda Approved Mit Plan Planted 5.1 0.93 1.5 2.8 VP3-09
3 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 10.44 7.53 2.2 4 VP3-01
3 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.82 8.98 1 2 VP3-04
3 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.72 6 0.7 1 VP3-05
3 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 2.65 1.43 1.2 2 VP3-06
3 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 2.85 0.72 1 2 VP3-07
3 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 4.11 0.55 1.5 2.3 VP3-08
3 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 7.06 0.74 1 2 VP3-10
3 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 6.77 1.34 0.6 2 VP3-11
3 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.62 0.96 0.8 2 VP3-12

Table 10. Shiny Tool Input Table for Vegetation Plot 4
Plot ID Scientific Name Performance Standard Approval Planted or Volunteer? X Coordinate (m) Y Coordinate (m) MY0 Height MY1 Height Map_ID
4 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Planted 9.56 3.78 3 5.4 VP4-04
4 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Planted 7.46 3.61 2.5 4.2 VP4-06
4 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 4.01 8.5 3.8 6.5 VP4-09
4 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 3.57 0.38 2 4.2 VP4-08
4 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 5.64 0.06 1.8 3 VP4-07
4 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 5.42 3.03 1.5 3 VP4-11
4 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 5.52 6.18 1.5 3 VP4-10
4 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 7.99 0.84 1.7 3 VP4-01
4 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 8.9 0.8 1 1.8 VP4-02
4 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 9.65 2.24 1 2 VP4-03
4 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 9.79 7.9 0.8 2 VP4-05

Table 11. Shiny Tool Input Table for Vegetation Plot 5
Plot ID Scientific Name Performance Standard Approval Planted or Volunteer? X Coordinate (m) Y Coordinate (m) MY0 Height MY1 Height Map_ID
5 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Planted 6.26 8.03 1 2 VP05-23
5 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 9.37 6.28 1 2 VP05-21
5 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 1.02 6.11 1.2 2 VP05-03
5 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 3.55 7.99 1 1.8 VP05-06
5 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 3.25 3.07 0.7 1.8 VP05-07
5 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 6.33 1.19 0.7 1.3 VP05-08
5 Quercus michauxii Approved Mit Plan Volunteer 0.33 0.81 0.9 1.5 VP05-01
5 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.44 1.54 3.2 6.3 VP5-02
5 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.58 8.18 2 3.5 VP5-04
5 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Planted 1.65 8.8 1.5 2.8 VP5-05
5 Diospyros virginiana Approved Mit Plan Planted 6.54 6.01 3.2 6.1 VP5-22