20180854 Ver 1_Wingfoot_100078_MY5_2023_20240222

MY05 Monitoring Report
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Pitt County, NC
DMS Project No. 100078
DMS Contract Number: 7607
DWR Project Number: 2018-0854
Data Collection Period: September 26, 2023
Submittal Date: February 9, 2024
Little Contentnea Creek Watershed
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020203
RFP #16-007402
Prepared For:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
604 Macon Place
Raleigh, NC 27609
919-624-6901
[e-mail]
February 22, 2024
Mr. Jeremiah Dow
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
Raleigh, NC 27603
Re: Wingfoot – Task 9 - MY 5 Report (DMS Project No. 100078/DMS Contract 7607)
Response to Comments
Dear Mr. Dow,
Please find below the response to comments on the Wingfoot Buffer Mitigation Monitoring
Report provided by DMS dated January 23, 2024:
1.Section 2.0 – says that DWR viability letter is included in Appendix B. The
viability letter is not included.
Re: Complete. See attached viability letter at the end of Appendix B.
2.Please correct legal multiple legal citations that read “15 NCAC…” to “15A
NCAC…”
Re: 15 NCAC has been corrected to 15A NCAC throughout the report.
3.Section 3.2, paragraph 2 says the site was planted at approximately 538 stems/acre,
but Section 4.3 the baseline was 666 stems/acre with a current planted stem density
averaging 570 stems/acre (higher than the planted density referenced in Section 3.2).
Please clarify.
Re: The inconsistencies regarding stems/acre was clarified in Section 3.2. After
construction, planted stems resembled 666 stems/acre rather than the 538
stems/acre described in the planting plan.
4.Final sentence in first paragraph of Section 4.3 says to “Refer to Figure 9…” for
“proposed supplemental planting areas.” Figure 9 only shows supplemental planting that
occurred in MY4. Please clarify.

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
604 Macon Place
Raleigh, NC 27609
919-624-6901
[e-mail]

Re: The final sentence in first paragraph of Section 4.3 was revised to read “Figure
9 (Current Condition Plan View) and Table 4 in Appendix B for additional
information and previously supplemental planted areas.” Within the legend for
Figure 9 - CCPV, the supplemental planting area is further distinguished by
adding a “MY04 2022” label.

5. Please orient all Figures the same direction (horizontal)
Re: All figures have been modified to ensure landscape orientation.

6. Figure 9 – an invasive treatment area is shown on the CCPV, but the report indicates
that invasives were not treated in 2023. Please indicate in the legend the year the
invasive treatment polygon represents, or remove. Additionally, we recommend
adding indicating that the Riparian Habitat Corridor is “Not for Credit” in the legend.

Re: The polygon representing the previously implemented invasive treatment
was removed from CCPV (Figure 9). The label distinguishing the Riparian
Habitat Corridor has been modified to include “Not for Credit” and is displayed
on Figure 9.

7. Please fix Appendix B title page text. Please orient the photo pages horizontally.

Re: The title page for Appendix B has been corrected and the photo pages have
been reoriented.

8. Per recent requests from DWR, please include individual veg plot stem locations and
height/vigor to Appendix B. Field sheets are acceptable.

Re: Field monitoring sheets for year 5 vegetation monitoring have been scanned
and included after Site Photos – Existing Conditions.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions at 919-624-6901.

Sincerely,

Kevin Yates
MY05 Monitoring Report

Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Pitt County, NC

DMS Project No. 100078
DMS Contract Number: 7607
DWR Project Number: 2018‐0854
Data Collection Period: September 26, 2023
Submittal Date: February 9, 2024
Little Contentnea Creek Watershed
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020203

PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652

PREPARED BY:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
604 Macon Place
Raleigh, North Carolina
Authorized Representative: Mr. Kevin Yates
Phone: 919‐624‐6901

This Mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following: NCAC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015 and Nutrient Offsets Payments Rule 15A
NCAC 02B. 0240, amended effective September 1, 2010 and DWR – 1998. Methodology and Calculations
for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment.

These documents govern DMS operations and procedures
for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.

Contributing Staff:
Kevin Yates, Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Christian Preziosi, Davey Resource Group
Wes Fryar, Davey Resource Group
Kim Williams, Davey Resource Group

Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Monitoring Report (MY05) i | Page
DMS Project No. 100114
February 9, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Mitigation Project Summary ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Goals .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Pre-Construction Site Conditions .............................................................................................. 2

2.0. Determination of Credits ................................................................................................................. 3

3.0. Baseline Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Planting Preparation .................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Riparian Area Restoration and Enhancement Activities .......................................................... 5
3.3 Riparian Area Preservation Activities ....................................................................................... 6

4.0 Annual Monitoring and Performance Criteria ................................................................................ 6
4.1 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 7
4.4 Maintenance and Management ................................................................................................ 7

5.0 References ........................................................................................................................................ 8

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES

Figure 1 ....................................................................................................................................... Vicinity Map
Figure 2 ................................................................................................................................. Watershed Map
Figure 3 .................................................................................. USGS Farmville 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Figure 4 ..................................................................................................................... NC DOT QL2 LiDAR Map
Figure 5 ..............................................................................................................Pitt County NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 6 .......................................................................................................... 1998 NAPP Aerial Photography
Figure 7 ............................................................. 2016 Aerial with Conservation Easement and Disked Areas
Figure 8A ................................................................................................................. Mitigation Plan Overview
Figure 8B ........................................................................................ Mitigation Plan Inset with Plot Locations
Figure 9 ............................................................................................................. Current Condition Plan View

Table 1. ....................................................................................................... Buffer Project Attributes
Table 2. ............................................................................................ Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Table 3 ......................................................................................................................... Planting Plan
Table 4 ............................................................................................. Planted and Total Stem Counts

Appendix A. ............................................................................................................... Figures/Tables
Appendix B............................................................................................... Vegetation Data & Viability Letter

Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Monitoring Report (MY5) 1 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

1.0 Mitigation Project Summary
The Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Restoration Project (“the Site”) is a buffer restoration project located in Pitt
County, approximately three (3) miles southeast of Farmville, NC and east of State Route 1139 (Moye
Turnage Road) (Figure 1). The Site is comprised of 22.31 acres and is located within the Little Contentnea
Creek TLW of the Neuse River (Figures 2 & 3). The buffer restoration and enhancement areas are located
along unnamed tributaries (UTs) and drainages that flow directly into Little Contentnea Creek
approximately 0.3 miles downstream (Figures 3-5). The Site is surrounded by areas managed for
agricultural production (corn, cotton, and soybean) and prior to the project completion lacked existing
forested buffer along a majority of the streams and drainageways dissecting the site. The Site is expected
to generate 541,415.369 riparian buffer credits (BMU).
The Site is located within Hydologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020203070030 and North Carolina Department of
Water Resources (NC DWR) Sub-Basin 03-04-07. Four (4) unnamed tributaries on the Site flow into Little
Contentnea Creek (Reach A1, B1-B3). Little Contentnea Creek is a 303d-listed impaired waterbody with a
NC DEQ surface water classification of C; Sw, NSW.

1.1 Project Goals
The main goals of the project are to provide water quality and ecological enhancements to the Little
Contentnea Creek watershed of the Neuse River basin by creating a riparian corridor and restoring the
historic riparian buffer. The project addresses the watershed goals identified in the Neuse River Basin
Restoration Plan (RBRP) (NC EEP, 2010). These goals include:
● Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers;
● Promote re-establishment of riparian corridors of substantial width to improve connectivity of
protected lands; and
● Support implementation of Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) strategies.

These watershed goals have been achieved via the restoration and enhancement of woody buffer along
unnamed tributaries of the Little Contentnea Creek (a 303d-listed impaired waterbody). Specific
objectives of the project which achieved the desired goals included:

● Conversion of existing agricultural fields into wooded riparian buffer zones along existing
tributaries via planting of characteristic hardwood species;
● Enhancement of degraded buffer areas (in areas of fields laid to fallow) via planting of
characteristic hardwood species;
● Ensuring diffuse flow throughout the riparian buffer zone;
● Establishment of a conservation easement to protect the riparian buffer restoration site in
perpetuity and to connect to existing DMS protected site; and
● Invasive species management during the monitoring period.

Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Monitoring Report (MY5) 2 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

Ancillary benefits of the project include:

• Increase of organic material as food for invertebrates, fish and wildlife;
• Supply of woody debris that provides increased niche habitat for fish, invertebrates and
amphibians;
• Reduction of sunlight reaching the stream and modulation of surface water temperatures;
• Floodwater attenuation via temporary storage, interception and slow releases from heavy rains;
and
• Habitat connectivity between currently protected riparian buffer areas (NC DMS Fox Run Site) and
downstream riverine swamp forest via a protected riparian habitat corridor (including expansion
of refuge and foraging habitat).

1.2 Pre-construction Site Conditions

The project includes 22.31 acres of mostly open agricultural fields along four (4) unnamed tributaries to
Little Contentnea Creek. The Site has historically been managed for agricultural production (corn, cotton,
and soybean). Site drainage and hydrology have been historically altered with channelized streams and
cleared agricultural lands prevalent on historic aerial photos dating back to the 1940s. The majority of
the Site has been cleared as recent as 1998 (Figure 6) with some areas revegetating in recent years (Figure
7).

The Site consists of four reaches (A1, B1, B2, and B3) as illustrated in Figures 8A and 8B. Reach A1 is a
perennial stream located on the northern boundary of the site and is contiguous with the existing NC DMS
buffer project easement (Fox Run). Reach A1 flows from the NC DMS easement on the northwestern
boundary to the north and into Little Contentnea Creek approximately 1,800 lf downstream. There is
approximately 850 lf of stream associated with Reach A1 within the proposed buffer easement area. The
upper portion of Reach A1 has been restored as a forested riparian buffer to 200-ft. The lower segment
near the confluence with Reach B1 has been restored to 100-ft. Reach B1 is the perennial stream that
dissects the central portion of the site. It drains into Little Contentnea Creek (approximately 1,300 lf
downstream from the eastern property boundary). There is approximately 2,690 lf of stream channel
associated with Reach B1 within the proposed buffer easement area. The cleared portion of Reach B1 has
been restored to 100-ft. A small area along the north side has been enhanced by establishing woody stems
to 100-ft. The remaining portion of the reach near the confluence with Reach A1 and along the north side
of the reach (extending east to the property line) has re-vegetated in past years and has been preserved.
Reaches B2 and B3 flow into Reach B1 from smaller drainage areas on the southern portion of the site.
Reach B2 is partly an intermittent stream consisting of approximately 210 lf of stream channel and partly
a non-stream tributary of approximately 385 lf of channel. Reach B3 is a non-stream tributary that flows
directly into reach B2 and consists of approximately 420 lf of channel. The first 50-ft from these tributaries
have been restored. The project attributes are listed in Table 1, located in Appendix A.

Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Monitoring Report (MY5) 3 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

2.0 Determination of Credits
On August 30, 2018, Ms. Katie Merritt of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) performed an evaluation
of surface water features and adjacent riparian areas within the proposed mitigation site for the
determination of riparian buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015)
and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240 (refer to attached Site Viability Letter,
Appendix B). Based upon this evaluation, DWR determined that areas within 200 ft of Reach A-1 and Reach
B-1 are eligible for both buffer restoration credit and nutrient offset credit (with the latter eligible in non-
forested fields only). Riparian areas along Reach B-2 and B-3 are eligible for nutrient offset. In addition,
the downstream segment of B-2 is eligible for buffer restoration credits. In addition to buffer restoration
on subject streams, per the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)), alternative
mitigation is proposed on the site in the form of: 1) preservation of buffers on subject streams and, 2)
restoration and enhancement on ditches. The project is in compliance with these rules as it meets the
following criteria:

Preservation on Subject Streams (15A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)(5)):

(A) The buffer width is at least 30 feet from the stream;

(B) The area meets the requirements of 15A NCAC 02R 0.0403(c)(7), (8), and (11) with no known
structures, infrastructure, hazardous substances, soild waste, or encumbrances within the
mitigation boundary;

(C) Preservation mitigation is being requested on no more than 25% of the total buffer mitigation
area (Table 2, Appendix A)

Restoration and Enhancement on Ditches (15A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)(8)):

Reach B-3 and the upstream segment of Reach B-2 were determined to be conditionally eligible for buffer
credit value provided that the watershed drainage area is of sufficient size to meet the rule criteria per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(8). Note that the ditches proposed for buffer restoration meet the following
criteria:

(A) are directly connected with and draining towards an intermittent or perennial stream;
(B) are contiguous with the rest of the mitigation site protected under a perpetual conservation
easement;
(C) stormwater runoff from overland flow shall drain towards the ditch (Not Applicable);
(D) are between one and three feet in depth; and
(E) the entire length of the ditches have been in place prior to the effective date of the applicable
buffer rule.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Monitoring Report (MY5) 4 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

F) The buffer width is at least 30 feet from the stream

Similarly, in accordance with Subparagraph (o)(8), the perpetual conservation easement includes the ditch
and the confluence of the ditch with the stream. The easement includes language prohibiting future
maintenance of the ditch. In addition, the watershed draining to the ditch is at least four times larger
than the restored or enhanced area along the ditch. The watershed draining to the upper end of Reach
B-2 is approximately 782,392 sf (relative to a corresponding buffer area of 32,671 sf). The watershed
draining to Reach B-3 is approximately 312,499 sf (relative to a corresponding buffer area of 35,609 sf).
There are no known site constraints that would impede or adversely affect the restoration, enhancement,
and preservation of riparian buffer within the recorded easement area. Diffuse flow of runoff will be
maintained in the riparian buffer except where the upstream portions of non-subject ditch segments of
B2 and B3 enter the buffered area. Where such diffuse flow cannot be attained in these areas and where
NCDWR agrees that such treatment of stormwater is not possible, deduction of credit has been calculated
and applied following guidance of Buffer Interpretation/Clarification Memo #2008-019. In these
upstream areas, an immediate drainage area equaling 0.10-acre from the point of discharge has been
used to calculate the area of buffer being short-circuited by the ditch. Since the upstream origin of the
ditch is not buffered, the credit deduction has been applied to the most upstream portion of the ditch on
the Site.
Mitigation credits are presented in Table 2 and Figure 8A/8B in Appendix A and are based upon the
conservation easement survey included in Appendix C.

3.0 Baseline Summary
The project team restored high quality riparian buffers along all unnamed tributaries within the Site. The
project design ensured that no adverse impacts to wetlands of existing riparian buffers occurred during
implementation. Refer to Figure 8A/8B for the conceptual design of the project. Details of the restoration
activity that occurred follows in the sections below. Refer to site photos in Appendix D.
3.1 Planting Preparation
Based upon pre-project assessment of compaction within the proposed planting areas, the project team
identified two select areas of the buffer restoration project that warranted site disking (refer to Figure 7).
The areas included an approximate 150-ft long area of the right top of bank of the upper end of Reach B-
1 and the riparian area of the right top of bank of Reach A-1 (including the area of field identified as the
“Riparian Habitat Corridor”). These areas were disked prior to planting to reduce compaction and to
enhance microtopography. In addition, selective mowing occurred within the riparian buffer
enhancement area to limit blackberry and smaller, volunteer red maple (refer to Figure 7). This area was
observed to contain a population of Japanese honey-suckle (Lonicera japonica) which was spot treated
with herbicide. No other site preparation occurred. No observed drain tiles were observed prior to, or
during, construction and planting and no other land disturbance was needed to maintain diffuse flow as
required.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Monitoring Report (MY5) 5 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

3.2 Riparian Area Restoration and Enhancement Activities
Prior to planting, the conservation easement boundary was marked using 6-inch diameter treated posts
buried 2 feet, standing 6 feet above the ground surface, within the agricultural fields. T-posts were
installed to provide supplemental marking within areas between the treated posts, within the
enhancement area, and within the preservation areas as needed. The easement boundary was also
marked with standard yellow Conservation Area signs, per the 01/23/14 NCDMS Boundary Marking
Standards.

The planting plan consisted of the planting of four hardwood species and one softwood species on a
density of approximately 538 stems per acre. This density was selected to be sufficient to meet
performance standards outlined in the Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees per acre at the end of five
years. After construction, the actual number of planted stems resembled 666 stems per acre rather than
the 538 stems per acre described in the planting plan. Species selection and distribution were matched
closely to micro-site hydrologic and edaphic conditions and include species characteristic of riparian
buffer assemblages in the watershed and adjacent to the site. Species more tolerant of poorly drained
soils (i.e. bald cypress and willow oak) were planted within lower landscape positions generally consisting
of the Tuckerman soil series while species characteristically occurring in better drained soils will be
planted in slightly higher convex landscape positions. The selected native trees are well-suited to the site-
specific conditions of the property to promote high survivorship rates. No one tree species planted was
greater than 50% of the established stems. Site planting was conducted on March 12-13th, 2019 by
Superior Forestry Services, Inc. and supervised by project managers from both Clearwater Mitigation
Solutions and Davey Resource Group.
Table 3 summarizes the trees planted by species for the Wingfoot mitigation site.

Table 3. Planting Plan1
1Note planted area includes approximate 1.0 acres of field included for riparian habitat corridor. While no credit is
proposed for this area, it was planted per the same specifications (species density and composition) as those
contained within final, approved mitigation plan.
2Cypress trees are conifers, but unlike most American softwoods, they are deciduous trees that shed foliage in the
fall like hardwoods. Although cypress is a softwood, it grows alongside hardwoods and was selected as an
appropriate species to be planted in the wetter parts of the site.
Common Name Scientific Name % Composition Acreage Quantity
River Birch Betula nigra 25 3.72 2,000
American Sycamore Plantanus occidentalis 17.5 2.60 1,400
Bald Cypress² Taxodium distichum 27.5 4.09 2,200
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 15 2.23 1,200
Water Oak Quercus nigra 15 2.23 1,200
Total N/A 100 14.87 8,000
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Monitoring Report (MY5) 6 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

3.3 Riparian Area Preservation Activities
No work was done in the buffer preservation areas. The preservation area will be protected in perpetuity
under a conservation easement.

4.0 Annual Monitoring and Performance Criteria
Annual Monitoring has been conducted during the growing season for a period of five years. The reports
include all information required by DMS monitoring guidelines including photographs, plot locations, and
documentation of existing species density and composition. Monitoring has been performed in
accordance with the Consolidated Mitigation Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) and current DMS
standards. The performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the
guidance documents outlined in the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295). Performance criteria
has been evaluated throughout the five-year post-construction monitoring.

4.1 Methods
The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian buffer at
the end of the required monitoring period (Monitoring Year (MY05)). Native hardwood and native shrub
volunteer species may be included to meet the final performance standard of 260 stems per acre.
Vegetative monitoring included the establishment of eleven (11) permanent plots consistent with the
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocol Level 2 (version 4.2) (refer to Figure 9 for plot
locations). Reference photos of the vegetation plots and Site were taken at each predetermined photo
point location. Appendix B includes the monitoring year five (MY05) vegetation plot photographs and the
planted and total stem counts. Any vegetative problem areas in the site are noted and reported in each
monitoring report. Vegetative problem areas may include areas that either lack vegetation or include
populations of exotic vegetation. Monitoring reports identify any contingency measures that may need to
be employed to remedy site deficiencies.

Permanent photo stations were established across the project area in order to document site stability for
five years post construction. Markers were established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and view directions on the Site were photographed each year. Photo reference stations are
shown on Figure 9.
Visual assessments have been performed annually during the five-year monitoring period. Problem areas
of vegetative health have been noted and areas of concern have been mapped, photographed, and
documented in each subsequent annual monitoring report. Problem areas have been re-evaluated in each
monitoring event.

Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Monitoring Report (MY5) 7 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

4.2 Tables
(MY05) vegetation plot photographs and the planted and total stem counts (Table 3) are included in
Appendix B.
4.3 Results and Discussion (MY05)
Annual monitoring (MY05) was conducted on September 26, 2023 by DRG staff. Overall, the Site has
exceeded the required vegetative success criteria. An average stem density of 570 planted stems per acre
was tallied across the site (approximately 86% of the recorded baseline (MY0) density (666 stems per
acre)). Stem densities within individual monitoring plots range from 202 to 728 planted stems per acre.
Planted stem counts within individual plots range from 5 to 18 stems with an average of 14 planted stems
per plot. Ten different hardwood species were observed across the site, exceeding the minimum diversity
criterion. All vegetation plots except plot 8 have met the MY05 success criteria and many planted stems
have exhibited prolific growth during the first five years of monitoring. In previous years, trees were lost
to Japanese honeysuckle strangulation. In MY05 all trees in Plot 8 from MY04 were accounted for. The
Site has met the final success criteria in all but one plot. Refer to Figure 9 (Current Condition Plan View)
and Table 4 in Appendix B for additional information and prior planted supplemental areas.

Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) were observed and
limited to the vicinity of Plot 8 as documented in previous years. The remaining trees within Plot 8 appear
to be unaffected by the continued presence of Japanese Honeysuckle and dense herbaceous coverage.
The remaining six trees continued to demonstrate growth and displayed an excellent vigor. This is the first
year throughout the monitoring process where Plot 8 did not document any mortalities or planted trees
characterized by low vigor. The remaining enhancement area of the site maintained relatively similar
conditions to MY04. Refer to Appendix B for monitoring year five (MY05) vegetation plot photographs and
the planted and total stem counts.

4.4 Maintenance and Management
Overall, the vast majority of the Site has met the target success criteria. Small populations of invasive
species were noted in the vicinity of Plot 8. Invasive conditions did not continue to permeate throughout
Year 5 and treatments were not applied in the spring of 2023. Monitoring problem areas and invasive
treatment areas at the site has been conducted for the required five years. Supplemental planting was
conducted within a small area of low vigor trees at the upper end of the A1 reach in the early MY04
growing season. While this area was meeting required stem density, stem growth was noticeably less than
the surrounding areas. For this reason, larger bare root stems were planted in this area. Approximately
(100) 4-ft bare root stems consisting of river birch, sycamore, and willow oak were planted throughout
this area. The five required years of monitoring have been completed, and the site has met the
performance standards in all but one plot. Upon review and approval of this final monitoring report by
NCDMS and NCDWR, we respectfully request closeout of the Site.

Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Monitoring Report (MY5) 8 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

5.0 References
Lee, Michael T. Peet, Robert K., Steven D. Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Randolph County.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009. http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/cape_fear/RBRP%20Cape%20Fear%202008.pdf
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2017. Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer
Baseline & Annual monitoring Report Template (Version 2.0, 05-2017). Raleigh, North Carolina.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Li
brary/Guidance%20and%20Templa te%20Documents/RB_NO_Base_Mon_Template_2.0_2017_5.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications

APPENDIX A:

Figures/Tables
Pitt
Wake
Johnston
Wayne
Nash
Martin
Wilson
CravenLenoir
Greene
Edgecombe
Harnett
Franklin Bertie
Sampson
Beaufort
Beaufort
JonesCumberland
Durham
Duplin
Halifax
Pamlico
Granville
Duplin
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
Figure 2Watershed Map
L:\WETLANDS\2018 WETLANDS FILES\LMG18.305 --- Wingfoot Buffer Project, Kevin Yates\GIS
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: OpenStreetMap
0 10 205Miles¯
Wingfoot
Site
Legend
Parcel_Boundary
Targeted Local Watershed (03020203070030)
8-Digit Hydrologic Unit (03020203)
Figure 7
Conservation Easement
with Proposed Disking Areas
8004002000
NOTES:
1. BUFFER MITIGATION BOUNDARIES BASED UPON BASE SURVEY DRAWING FROM K2 DESIGN GROUP.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
January 2019
LMG18.093
Figure 8A
Mitigation Plan Overview
200010005000
NOTES:
1. BUFFER MITIGATION BOUNDARIES BASED UPON BASE SURVEY DRAWING FROM K2 DESIGN GROUP.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
January 2019
LMG18.093
A-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
FOX RUN
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
INSET
S
T
R
E
A
M
Figure 8B
Mitigation Plan Inset
with Plot Locations
8004002000
NOTES:
1. BUFFER MITIGATION BOUNDARIES BASED UPON BASE SURVEY DRAWING FROM K2 DESIGN GROUP.
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
January 2019
LMG18.093
A-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
Diffuse Flow
Credit Deduction
Diffuse Flow
Credit Deduction
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
PS 8
PS 7
PS 5
PS 4
PS 1
PS 3
PS 2
PS 6
Plot 6
Plot 2
Plot 7
Plot 5
Plot 3
Plot 8
Plot 9
Plot 4
Plot 1
Plot 11
Plot 10
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
Map Date: 2-8-24
DRGNCW18.305
3805 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
Figure 9 Current Condition Plan View (MY05)
L:\WETLANDS\2018 WETLANDS FILES\DRGNCW18.305 --- Wingfoot Buffer Project, Kevin Yates\Maps
Map Source: MY04 Drone Imagery (DRG)
0 300 600150Feet¯
Legend
Conservation Easement (Surveyed) (~22.31 ac.)
Top Of Bank
Buffer Restoration (0 ft - 100 ft - Stream)
Buffer Restoration (0 ft - 100 ft - Ditch)
Buffer Restoration (101 ft - 200 ft - Stream)
Buffer Enhancement - Stream
Buffer Preservation - Stream
Riparian Habitat Corridor (Not for Credit)
Perennial/Intermittent Streams
Supplemental Planting Area (MY04 2022)
Ditch
Woodline
Vegetation Plots:
^_Photo Stations
A-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-1
S
T
R
E
A
M
DI
T
C
H
Diffuse Flow Credit Reduction Area
(Green = Meets Criteria /
Red = Does Not Meet Criteria)
Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 – 2023
November 2023

ROY COOPER
Governor
State of North Carolina | Environmental Quality | Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center | Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 | 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T
Table 2. Wingfoot, 100078, Project Mitigation Credits
Service Area
N Credit Ratio (sf/credit)
P Credit Ratio (sf/credit)
Credit Type Location
Subject?
(enter NO if
ephemeral or
ditch 1)
Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer
Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (sf)
Total
(Creditable)
Area of Buffer
Mitigation (sf)
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 A1, B1, B2 414,636 414,636 1 100%1.00000 Yes 414,636.000 Yes 21,636.261 —
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 101-200 A1, B1, B2 87,048 87,048 1 33%3.03030 Yes 28,725.869 Yes 4,542.281 —
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Enhancement 0-100 B1 30,855 30,855 2 100%2.00000 Yes 15,427.500 No ——
Buffer Rural No Ditch Restoration 0-50 B2, B3 (ditches)71,494 62,782 1 100%1.00000 Yes 62,782.000 Yes 3,730.652 —
———
Totals:604,033 595,321
Enter Preservation Credits Below Eligible for Preservation (sf):198,440
Credit Type Location Subject?Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer
Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (sf)
Total
(Creditable)
Area for
Buffer
Mitigation (sf)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit Final Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Riparian
Buffer Credits
Buffer Rural Yes I / P 0-100 A1, B1 201,074 198,440 10 100%10.00000 19,844.000
Preservation Area Subtotal (sf):198,440
Preservation as % Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:25.0%
Ephemeral Reaches as % Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:0.0%Square Feet Credits
564,466 506,143.869
30,855 15,427.500
198,440 19,844.000
0 793761 793,761 541,415.369
595321
Square Feet Credits
Nitrogen:0.000
1. The Randleman Lake buffer rules allow some ditches to be classified as subject according to 15A NCAC 02B .0250 (5)(a).Phosphorus:0.000
Neuse 03020203
19.16394
N/A
Restoration:
Enhancement:
Mitigation Totals
0
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Nutrient
Offset:
Preservation:
Total Riparian Buffer:
APPENDIX :
Vegetation Data
&
Viability Letter
Table 4. Planted and Total Stems
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100078
Monitoring Year 5 – 2023
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Appendix B 1 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
(1) PS1 (Looking north towards Reach A1)(2) PS1 (Looking northeast towards CE boundary)(3) PS2 (Looking west along Reach A1)(4) PS2 (Looking east along Reach A1)
(5)PS3 (Looking east along enhancement area)(6) PS3 (Looking northeast into enhancement area)(7) PS4 (Looking east along Reach B1)(8) PS4 (Looking northeast into restoration area)
(9) PS5 (Looking north towards preservation area) (10) PS5 (Looking west into restoration area)(11) PS6 (Looking north towards Reach B2) (12) PS6 (Looking west into restoration area)
Appendix B. Site Photos - Existing Conditions
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site – Appendix B 1 | Page
DMS Project No. 100078
(13) PS7 (Looking north along Reach B3)(14) PS7 (Looking north into restoration area)(15) PS8 (Looking west along Reach B1)
Appendix B. Site Photos - Existing Conditions