Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DWR_Approved_Dogtown AsBuilt Report REVISED
Bank Parcel Development Plan As-Built Report Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank DWR Project # 2018-1097v2 Catawba County, North Carolina Catawba River Watershed HUC 03050101 Prepared By: Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc and Exchange (EBX) 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 February 2024 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Corporate Headquarters 6575 W Loop S #300 Bellaire, TX 77401 Main: 713.520.5400 res.us February 13, 2024 Blake Hartshorn NC DEQ Division of Water Resources 512 N. Salisbury St, Archdale Building - 9th floor Raleigh, NC 27604 RE: Dogtown Mitigation Bank: As-Built Monitoring Report (DWR#2018-1097v2) Listed below are comments provided by DWR on December 1, 2023 regarding the Dogtown: As- Built Report and RES’ responses. • Expand on this. Would this be changing Buffer credits? o Vegetation plot six was placed in a fully planted area to satisfy requirements under USACE jurisdiction, however was included in the vegetation monitoring plan for NCDWR despite RES surpassing the minimum number of vegetation monitoring plots required under NCDWR regulations. The inclusion of this monitoring plot does not affect NCDWR riparian mitigation credits. We have expanded on this further in the monitoring report to reduce any confusion. • Add vigor data in upcoming monitoring reports as well. o We have now added vigor under parameters we are commited to reporting on. • Success criteria for Buffer is 260 stems per acre. o This section has been revised to mirror your comment. • The Sqft amount in BPDP is 63,848sqft for pond foot print. Why did the footprint get larger? o The BPDP pond footprint originally used to calculate areas was based on ariel imagery, the pond footprint at As-Built is calculated based on surveyed points collected by a licensed surveyor. • S2 151-200 is not approved according to the approved BPDP. According to BPDP this is supposed to be preservation. Adjust map, survey, and credit table accordingly. o This polygon has been converted over to preservation with the credit table and plat now reflecting this. • Unable to read all of these feature names. Format appropriately so this is legible. o The credit table now provided has been expanded to increase legibility. • Should the preservation be 151-200? Since the non-standard buffer width is 51-150. If so show as 151-200ft. o The relevent preservation areas have now been labeled as 151-200’ since the non standard buffer width occupies the 51-150’ zone. • Shouldnt this be 151-200? o The CCPV legends have now been updated to match the requested widths. • As per the approved BPDP, this needs to stay as preservation. Adjust the credit table accordingly o This has been adjusted in the credit table, survey plat, and CCPV figures. • Why is this area off of S1 not preservation anymore? Survey and approved BPDP is showing it as 50ft preservation, please update accordingly o This area was overlooked in the original submittal and has been revised accordingly in all relevant areas. 2 • There should be a gap in this location as per the BPDP and As Built Survey o This gap has been addressed and is now present in all relevant locations. • These zones do not seem to be measured correctly. Since green is supposed to be 0-50 and yellow hatched is 101-151...where is the 51-100 representation? o This area was not applicable for the non standard buffer width but was approved for buffer restoration credit within the BPDP. The legend has been updated to 51-100’ as opposed to 101-151’ as previously stated. • Why is this area not contributing to the non-standard buffer width for stream credit like everywhere else? o This area was not applicable for USACE non-standard buffer credit. • Provide a buffer width map depicting 0-50, 51-151, and 150-200. We are having a hard time validating appropriate widths and their associated credits. o The CCPV figures now depict the widths requested. • There needs to be a credit gap here as per the BPDP and As Built Survey o This has been revised to what was approved in the BPDP. • Credit table has the pond footprints labeled as PA, PB, and PC but it is not on the map. Label these pond foot prints accordingly on the map. o The pond footprints are now labeled accordingly on the CCPV figures. • Figure 2B shows the correct pond footprint representation as per the approved BPDP which was pre-construction footprint, this should not change from the BPDP. Adjust this survey to correctly to represent the pond footprint and adjust the credit table accordingly. This survey is showing more restoration area and less preservation area than what the BPDP represented as existing pond foot print. DWR is assuming this is why 17,259sqf was added to the pond foot print as compared to the BPDP. o The BPDP pond footprint used originally to calculate areas was based on ariel imagery, the pond footprint during As-Built credit calculations was based on surveyed points collected in the field by a licensed surveyor. • What is this gap here? The BPDP does not show this and there are no call outs and this seems pretty wide for it to be top of bank on stream. o The gap is based on Top of Bank calls picked up by the surveyor, RES is not requesting any credits between top of bank lines. • This survey does not represent the buffer zones as DWR needs them represented. Identify the ranges of the credit zones as identified in the project credit table (0-50, 51-150, 151-200 etc.) o The survey plat now represents the buffer zones as requested by DWR. • There is no symbology representing these zone ranges, so therefore DWR cannot confirm the total area is compliant with the BPDP or As Built as applicable. o The survey plat now matches the legend and applicable zones. • Where is the original signature? DWR needs to be able to see the signature on the survey o This was lost during the formatting process however is now present. • Change this portion off of S2 to preservation as per the approved BPDP. o This has now been updated. i Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location and Description .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Success Criteria ............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Components .................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Riparian Restoration Approach ................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Construction and As-Built Conditions ...................................................................................... 3 1.6 Baseline Monitoring Performance ............................................................................................. 3 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Reference ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Appendix A: Site Maps Table 1: Dogtown Project Credits Figure 1: Site Map Figure 2A: Current Conditions Plan View (Dogtown North) Figure 2B: Current Conditions Plan View (Dogtown South) Figure 3: As-Built Plat Appendix B: Vegetation Assessment Data Table 2a: Planted Species Summary Table 2b: Planted Seed Mix Summary Table 3: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table Table 4: Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species Appendix C: Project Photos Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos Stream Construction and Easement Photos Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets Appendix E: Adaptive Management Plan Attachments Figure 1a – Adaptive Management Problem Areas (Dogtown North) Figure 1b – Adaptive Management Problem Areas (Dogtown North) Problem Area Photos Proposed Tree Species Summary Map of Corrected Easement Signage (August 2023) Dogtown Buffer 1 Baseline Monitoring Report Mitigation Site February 2024 1.0 Project Summary 1.1 Project Location and Description Environmental Banc & Exchange (EBX) is pleased to provide this Bank Parcel Monitoring Report for the Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank (“Project”). This Parcel is designed to provide Riparian Buffer credits for unavoidable impacts to riparian buffers along the Catawba mainstem below Lake James and along the mainstem lakes from and including Lake James to the NC & SC border in the Catawba River Basin per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (l)(1). The Bank Parcel is located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit HUC 03050101. This Project is in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, made and entered into by EBX acting as the Bank Sponsor (Sponsor), and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality-Division of Water Resources (DWR). Supporting figures can be found in Appendix A. The Project has also been designed and constructed in concurrence with the Dogtown Stream Mitigation Site (SAW# 2017-00608). The Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank (Project) is located within Catawba County, approximately four miles north of Conover. The Project lies within the Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-08-32 and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03050101140010 (Lyle Creek watershed, a Target Local Watershed) (Figure 1). The Project provides the opportunity to protect 61.04 acres of riparian habitat and provides water quality benefit downstream of the approximately 427-acre project drainage area. The Project is accessible from C & B Farm Road and Swinging Bridge Road (Figure 1). Coordinates for the Project are as follows: 35.765828 N, and -81.185426 W. The Project is protected by a conservation easement totaling 61.04 acres and is comprised of two separate easement parcels consisting of Bakers Creek and seven of its unnamed tributaries that drain into Lyle Creek a direct tributary to the Catawba River. The drainage area of the Project is approximately 427 acres. The project area was primarily active pasture, scattered hay crop fields, and disturbed riparian forest, with three agricultural ponds located in the project area. Vegetation around the ponds and the unbuffered stream reaches were primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation and scattered trees. Additionally, the riparian buffer where vegetated was in poor condition throughout most of the project where it was narrow ten to twenty foot wide from top of bank. The Dogtown Stream Mitigation Site was built to not only provide stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation on approximately 11,602 linear feet of streams within the conservation easement through a separate mitigation banking instrument with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) but also restore and preserve the riparian buffer and surrounding areas. Riparian restoration and preservation of the Catawba River Basin per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (l) and other riparian areas onsite result in immediate water quality benefits within the vicinity of the Project and included the removal of agricultural practices adjacent to project streams and reduction in nutrient loads from agricultural land-uses. The riparian restoration activities within the Project also result in improved water quality within the downstream watershed. 1.2 Project Success Criteria Riparian buffer vegetation monitoring is based on the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level 2 Plot Sampling Only Version 4.2. Annual vegetation monitoring will continue to occur each year for a minimum of five years and will be conducted during the fall season with the first year occurring at least 5 months from initial planting. Twenty-two vegetation monitoring plots were installed a minimum of 100 m2 in size and cover more than at least two percent of the riparian restoration area. Plots were randomly placed throughout the planted buffer zones and are representative of the crediting areas, one fixed vegetation plot Dogtown Buffer 2 Baseline Monitoring Report Mitigation Site February 2024 has been placed within a fully replanted area RES is seeking additional stream credit for wider buffers under the USACE jurisdiction and does not impact credits under the Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species, vigor, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. Photos are to be taken from all photo points each monitoring year and provided in the annual reports. The measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at least four native hardwood tree species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of the established stems, established at a density of at least 260 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5. Native volunteer species may be included to meet the performance standards. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and treated so that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure of the site. RES must monitor the stream mitigation bank for a minimum of seven years, or until IRT approval. Therefore, plots placed within riparian restoration areas that are outside of the mitigation area for buffer will be monitored in accordance with the monitoring protocol in the Dogtown Stream Mitigation Plan. A visual assessment of the conservation easement will also be performed each year to confirm: • Easement markers are in good condition throughout the site; • No encroachment has occurred; • No invasive species in areas where invasive species were treated, • Diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement areas; and • There has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would negatively affect the functioning of the buffer. 1.3 Project Components This Bank includes 14.02 acres (610,773 ft2) of riparian buffer restoration area and 15.37 acres (669,689 ft2) of riparian buffer preservation resulting in 610,773.000 buffer restoration and 40,718.200 buffer preservation credits respectively. Credit amount changes from the approved BPDP to the MY0 monitoring report are due to surveyed TOB changes, easement break shifts, and the removal of a previously existing crossing that has since collapsed. These changes have resulted in a 20,759.467 increase in credits requested from the BPDP, this is in part due to surveyed top of banks after construction of the project as opposed to arial imagery used during the BPDP across the site, this especially had the largest impact around the previously ponded areas. The Sponsor will maintain one credit ledger for both buffer Restoration credits and buffer preservation credits. All mitigation credit assets shall be shown on the credit ledger. The total potential riparian buffer mitigation credits that the Dogtown Bank generated are summarized in Appendix A. 1.4 Riparian Restoration Approach Preparation within the Project involved treating invasive vegetation like Chinese privet and multiflora rose, contoured ripping, seeding and planting, and pond removal. Disturbed areas were stabilized to prevent erosion by seeding with a mixture of pollinator friendly temporary and permanent seed mix. The seed mixture of riparian seeding was applied and established where bare areas were present due to impacts from stream construction activities. Prior to seeding and planting, areas of compacted soils were ripped and disked. Temporary and permanent riparian seeding was consistent with the Planted Seed Mix Summary (Appendix B). Buffer restoration activities were conducted along stream reaches S1A S1B, S2A, S2B, S3A, S3B, DT1A, DT1B DT3A, DT3B, DT4 and Bakers Creek in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n). The ponds at the top of DT1A were constructed for stream restoration which restored and daylighted the connection between the pond and downstream. The stream design approach included breaching the existing dam and meandering the constructed channel within the natural valley Dogtown Buffer 3 Baseline Monitoring Report Mitigation Site February 2024 (Appendix A). The riparian areas adjacent to the newly constructed stream channel within the pond footprint were planted for buffer restoration credit in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B 0295 (o) and labeled as a “Pond” feature on Table 1. All riparian restoration areas were planted from top of bank back at least 50 feet from the stream with bare root tree seedlings on a 9 by 6 foot spacing to achieve an initial density of 800 trees per acre. The buffered channels provide water quality and habitat functions within the Catawba River Basin. The restored plant communities within the Project provide stabilization and improve water quality within the easement limits but also provide ecological benefits to the entire watershed. Buffer preservation was applied in the forested areas along S1A S1B, S2A, S2B, S3A, S3B, DT1A, DT1B DT2, DT2A, DT3A, DT3B, DT4 and Bakers Creek, in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6). Minimal maintenance outside of treating invasive vegetation growths and maintaining the easement is anticipated due to the past landuse history. 1.5 Construction and As-Built Conditions Revegetation of the site included treating invasive species and planting native hardwood bare root trees. Prior to planting, RES prepped the site by spraying and ripping the easement. There target vegetative community within the project was designed after a Piedmont Alluvial Forest. The Piedmont Alluvial Forest community is defined by Schafale and Weakely (2012). The planting of bare root trees occurred in March 2023. There were no deviations from the initial planting plan. A list of the planted species can be found in Table 2. Stream construction activities were completed in February 2023. The site was constructed in accordance with the Approved Mitigation Plan and associated permits and the construction was verified by DWR on a site visit in April 2023. RES acquired 404 (SAW-2017-00608) and 401 (2018-1097v2) Permits. There were no easement changes between BPDP approval and construction. The conservation easement was marked at each corner and every 200 feet with Unique Places 2 Save signs attached to t-posts during August 2023. Signage details are noted within the Adaptive Management Plan attached in Appendix E. 1.6 Baseline Monitoring Performance The Dogtown Monitoring activities were completed in March and April 2023. All Baseline Monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation success criteria and no known violations towards the easement boundaries integrity. Monitoring of the 22 vegetation plots was completed during April 2022. Vegetation tables are in Appendix B and associated photos are in Appendix C. MY0 monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the success criteria of 260 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 446 to 769 planted stems per acre with a mean of 636 planted stems per acre across all plots. Vigor of the planted stems was recorded as a “3” unless otherwise noted. A total of eight species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were not noted at baseline monitoring but are expected to establish in upcoming years. The average tree height observed was 1.38 feet. Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project. There was no encroachment observed or similar activities that would negatively affect the functioning of the buffer. During the As-Built site walk, April 26th, 2023, DWR officials noticed several areas of potential low stem density and the easement boundary was not adequately marked in some areas. Unmanaged vegetation (vines, blackberry, fennel, herbaceous, fallen trees) and inundated areas were present possibly supporting an absence of planted stems or areas lacking in sufficient stem density. Two monitoring transects will be Dogtown Buffer 4 Baseline Monitoring Report Mitigation Site February 2024 performed and data will be included per low stem density area in the MY1 report. Proposals to manage and monitor these areas are detailed in Appendix E under an Adaptive Management Plan. 2.0 Methods Vegetation monitoring and visual assessments are conducted on an annual basis at 22 permanent monitoring plots. Vegetation Plots were established based on protocols outlined in Section 1.2 above. One vegetation plot is outside riparian restoration zone but will be included in monitoring and reporting. Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data is processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each fixed plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year. Data from those plots measuring success of the areas where buffer credit is being sought are provided in the monitoring reports. These plots were randomly placed throughout the planted riparian mitigation area and are representative of the riparian restoration areas. All fixed vegetation monitoring plots are at least partially within riparian buffer crediting area however, some due to the narrow restoration area, are not fully within the riparian buffer restoration area. The number of monitoring plots needed based on riparian buffer area restoration is 12 while number of plots installed is 22, well over the minimum required. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. All stems in plots were flagged with flagging tape. 3.0 Reference Resource Environmental Solutions (2019). Dogtown Mitigation Site – Bank Parcel Development Plan Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). “Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities 2013.” NC Environmental Management Commission. 2014. Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0295 - Mitigation Program Requirements for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC. Appendix A Project Background Tables and Site Maps Table 1. Dogtown, 2018‐1097v2, Project Credits Project Area N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound) 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 No In‐Line Pond Restoration 0‐50 3 Ponds (PA, PB, PC) 81,107 81,107 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 81,107.000 No — — Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐50 S1 107,998 107,998 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 107,998.000 No — — Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐100 S1 (51‐100) 10,432 10,432 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 10,432.000 No — — Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐50 S2 29,074 29,074 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 29,074.000 No — — N/A — N/A — — Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐50 S3 79,886 79,886 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 79,886.000 No — — Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐50 DT1 29,425 29,425 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 29,425.000 No — — Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐50 DT2 5,387 5,387 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 5,387.000 No — — Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐50 DT3 96,783 96,783 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 96,783.000 No — — Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐50 DT4 94,390 94,390 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 94,390.000 No — — Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐50 Baker's Creek 76,291 76,291 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 76,291.000 No — — ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— Totals (ft2):610,773 610,773 610,773.000 0.000 0.000 Total Buffer (ft2):610,773 610,773 Total Nutrient Offset (ft2):0 N/A Total Ephemeral Area (ft2) for Credit:00 Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ft2):203,591 0.0%Ephemeral Reaches as % TABM Enter Preservation Credits Below Total Eligible for Preservation (ft2):203,591 25.0%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 Rural No I / P0‐50 DT1, DT2, DT3, DT4, S1, S2, S3 478,959 203,591 5 100% 5.00000 40,718.200 Rural No I / P 101‐200 Baker's Creek, S2, DT2, DT4, DT3 190,731 0 5 33% — — — — Preservation Area Subtotals (ft2):669,690 203,591 Square Feet Credits 610,773 610,773.000 0 0.000 203,591 40,718.200 814,364 651,491.200 Square Feet Credits Nitrogen:0.000 Phosphorus:0.0000 TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM) TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION Mitigation Totals Nutrient Offset: Preservation: Total Riparian Buffer: Catawba Buffer N/A N/A Restoration: Enhancement: Mitigation Totals 1. The Randleman Lake buffer rules allow some ditches to be classified as subject according to 15A NCAC 02B .0250 (5)(a). last updated 08/03/2020 0 10.5 Miles Figure 1. S ite Map Dogtown Mitigation Site Catawba C ounty, North Carolina Legend Proposed Easement ©Date: 6/28/2023 Drawn by: DGD Checked by: RTM Document Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\100148_Dogtown_Bank\MXD\6_MonitoringMaintenance\MY0\Dogtown Site Figure.mxd 1 inch = 5,000 feet Dogtown Mitgation Site © Figure 2A - CCPVDogtown Nor th DogtownMitigation Project Catawba County,North Carolina Date: 2/13/2024 Drawn by: DGD Document Path: R:\Resgis\Projects\NC\100148_Dogtown_Bank\MXD\6_M onitoringM aintenance\M Y0\DWR M Y0\Final\Layout_NORTH_DWR_M Y0-_Dogtown_Bank_CCPV_1.mxd Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world 1:3,000 0 400200 Feet Restoration - Pond Footprint Restoration 0-50' Restoration 51-100' Preservation 0-50' Preservation 151-200' USACE Extended Buffer Dogtown Easement Vegetation Plot Within BufferMitigation Area Vegetation Plot Outside of BufferMitigation Area Supplemental Planting Restoration Enhancement II Enhancement III (10) Enhancement III (7.5 Preservation Checked by: RTM © Figure 2B - CCPVDogtown South DogtownMitigation Project Catawba County,North Carolina Date: 3/19/2024 Drawn by: DGD Document Path: R:\Resgis\Projects\NC\100148_Dogtown_Bank\MXD\6_M onitoringM aintenance\M Y0\DWR M Y0\Final\Layout_SOUTH_DWR_MY0-_Dogtown_Bank_CCPV_1.mxd Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world 1:3,000 0 400200 Feet Restoration - Pond Restoration 0-50' Restoration 51-100' Preservation 0-50' Preservation 151-200' USACE Extended Dogtown Vegetation Plot Within BufferMitigation Area Vegetation Plot Outside ofBuffer Mitigation Area Supplemental Enhancement II Enhancement III Enhancement III (7.5 Checked by: RTM Collapsed Crossing LCE L C E LC E LCE LCE L C E L C E L C E L C E LCE LCE LCE LC E LCE L C E L C E LCE LCE LCE LC E LC E LCE LCE LCE L C E LCE LCE L C E L C E LCE LCE LCE LC E LC E LCE LC E LC E LCE LC E LC E L C E L C E LC E LC E L C E LCE LCE LCE L C E L C E L C E LC E LC E LC E L C E LCELCEECLCL LCE L C E LC E LCCLCELCELCECECCC LCE L C E L C E L C E L C E LL C E LL C L C L C LCE LCE LCE LC E LCE LLLLLCECCC LL LCE LCE LCECELLCE LC E E LC ECCL C E C E C E EEE L C LL C L C L C L C L C C CELCELC LC E ELCELCCELCELCEL L C E L C LCLC E E C E L C LCEE LCE LC E LCE LCE L C E C E EEE C E LCEE LCECELLCE C E L C E LCE LCE LCELL LC ECECEEEE LC E LCECELELCECLCE CE LC L C E LC E LC E L C E LCELLLLCLC LCE LCEELCLCE L C E L C L C C E L C E C E C E CC E C E E LC E LC E LLLCCEEE LC E L LCLCLC C L C E L C L C E C E E LLLLLL C L C E L C L C L C L C LC E CE LC E L LCCE L C E C E LCLCEECEECCCCEE CLC ECEEC LCELCLCC L C L C L C CC LCEE L C E CCCC LCCEE L C E C E LL C E LCCCCL LC E LC LCEE CECECECEEE L C E L C L C L C L C CC E C E C E C E EEE EEEEEE CC E EE C E CC E C E CC EEEEEECECEECCCCECELCELCECLLLEEELLCECECECELCEE LC E LC E LC E L C E L C E L C LLL C L C L C CCCC E L C E L C E L C E LL C E L C E L C E L C L C E C L C E E C E C E C E C E C E EEEE LC E L C E L C L C E LL C L C L C CCCC EEE E LC E L L C L C LLL C L C L C L C L C L C CCC L C L C L C L C C L C LLL C L C L C E L C E CC LCCE CE LC E L CE LC E L LC E CCC LCE E L C CE LCE E C E L E C E LCLCE L EE EE LL C CCEEE C CCC L E EEE LC LCLC L C E L C L C ECLC LLCEE CCE LLCE C L C E CC EE LC LL E ECE L C LC E LC E LL E L L C L C L C L C L C E LCCE LCCE L C E E C C L C LCELCLCLC C L C L C L C L C L C L C LCCEC C E C E LC E C C E LC E LC EC CE L C L C L C LL C L C L C L L C E L C LL C LCCEC LCLCEELC L C E C E LC E L L C E L C L C L C C ELCE LC E LCELCELCELCELLECLE C E E L L E E LCCE L C E C E CCCC C CCC LCEE C E E L C E LCCCCLL L C E E LC CE LCC SI T E M A P NT S RE A C H D T 4 RE A C H D T 2 RE A C H D T 3 RE A C H D T 1 SH E E T N U M B E R : REVISIONS: RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:PR O J E C T N U M B E R : PR O J E C T M A N A G E R : DE S I G N E D : DR A W N : CH E C K E D : SE A L RE S O U R C E E N V I R O N M E N T A L S O L U T I O N S , L L C 36 0 0 G L E N W O O D A V E , S U I T E 1 0 0 RA L E I G H , N C 2 7 6 1 2 As c e n s i o n L a n d Su r v e y i n g P . C . Pr o f e s s i o n a l L a n d Su r v e y i n g & C o n s u l t i n g 11 6 W i l l i a m s R o a d Mo c k s v i l l e , N C 2 7 0 2 8 Ph o n e : ( 7 0 4 ) 5 7 9 - 7 1 9 7 Em a i l : s u r v e y o r . c h r i s 0 0 7 @ g m a i l . c o m DO G T O W N S T R E A M M I T I G A T I O N S I T E CA T A W B A C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A CA T A W B A R I V E R B A S I N : H U C 0 3 0 5 0 1 0 1 JA N U A R Y 2 0 2 4 AS-BUILT SURVEY DRAWINGS 1 O F 2 10 0 1 4 8 CL C CL C TR S BR C AS - B U I L T P L A N I M E T R I C S S U R V E Y P R O V I D E D B Y AS C E N S I O N L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P C ( N C F I R M LI C E N S E N U M B E R C - 4 2 8 8 , C H R I S T O P H E R L . CO L E , N C P L S L - 5 0 0 8 ) , D A T E D A P R I L 2 3 , 2 0 2 3 . DE S I G N E D B Y : RE S O U R C E E N V I R O N M E N T A L S O L U T I O N S , L L C 36 0 0 G L E N W O O D A V E , S U I T E 1 0 0 RA L E I G H , N C 2 7 6 1 2 SU R V E Y E D B Y : AS C E N S I O N L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P C 11 6 W I L L I A M S R O A D MO C K S V I L L E , N C 2 7 0 2 8 PR O J E C T D I R E C T O R Y I, C H R I S T O P H E R L . C O L E , C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A T W A S D R A W N U N D E R M Y SU P E R V I S I O N F R O M A N A C T U A L S U R V E Y M A D E U N D E R M Y S U P E R V I S I O N ( F R O M DE E D S S H O W N O N T H E F A C E O F T H I S P L A T ) ; T H A T T H E B O U N D A R I E S N O T S U R V E Y E D AR E C L E A R L Y I N D I C A T E D A S D R A W N F R O M I N F O R M A T I O N F O U N D I N ( D E E D S S H O W N ON T H E F A C E O F T H I S P L A T ) ; T H A T T H E R A T I O O F P R E C I S I O N O R P O S I T I O N A L AC C U R A C Y A S C A L C U L A T E D I S 1 : 1 0 , 0 0 0 ' ; T H A T T H I S P L A T W A S P R E P A R E D I N AC C O R D A N C E W I T H G . S . 4 7 - 3 0 A S A M E N D E D A N D T H A T T H I S S U R V E Y I S O F AN O T H E R C A T E G O R Y , S U C H A S T H E R E C O M B I N A T I O N O F E X I S T I N G P A R C E L S , A CO U R T - O R D E R E D S U R V E Y , O R O T H E R E X E M P T I O N O R E X C E P T I O N T O T H E D E F I N I T I O N OF S U B D I V I S I O N . WI T N E S S M Y O R I G I N A L S I G N A T U R E , R E G I S T R A T I O N L I C E N S E N U M B E R A N D S E A L T H I S 12 T H D A Y O F F E B R U A R Y , A . D . , 2 0 2 4 . CH R I S T O P H E R L . C O L E L - 5 0 0 8 TH E P U R P O S E O F T H I S S U R V E Y I S T O SH O W T H E B U F F E R Z O N E S O N T H E DO G T O W N M I T I G A T I O N S I T E . N O PR O P E R T Y L I N E S O R E A S E M E N T L I N E S WE R E S U R V E Y E D A T T H I S T I M E . BA K E R S C R E E K LE G E N D 0- 5 0 F T R E S T O R A T I O N B U F F E R 51 - 1 0 0 F T R E S T O R A T I O N B U F F E R 0- 5 0 F T P R E S E R V A T I O N B U F F E R 15 1 - 2 0 0 F T P R E S E R V A T I O N B U F F E R Ri p a r i a n M i t i g a t i o n C r e d i t i n g Z o n e s Zo n e Mi t i g a t i o n T y p e To t a l A r e a ( S F ) Re s t o r e d P o n d Fo o t p r i n t Re s t o r a t i o n 81 , 1 0 7 0- 5 0 F T R e s t o r a t i o n 51 9 , 2 3 4 51 - 1 0 0 F T R e s t o r a t i o n 10 , 4 3 2 0- 5 0 F T Pr e s e r v a t i o n 47 8 , 9 5 9 15 1 - 2 0 0 F T P r e s e r v a t i o n 19 0 , 7 3 1 51 - 1 5 0 F T US A C E E x t e n d e d B u f f e r 1, 0 2 2 , 9 9 5 RE S T O R E D P O N D A R E A 51 - 1 5 0 F T U S A C E E X T E N D E D B U F F E R Ch r i s t o p h e r L . C o l e Di g i t a l l y s i g n e d b y C h r i s t o p h e r L . Co l e Da t e : 2 0 2 4 . 0 2 . 1 2 2 0 : 3 5 : 3 5 - 0 5 ' 0 0 ' LCE LCELCE LCE LCE LC E LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LC E LCE LCE LCE LC E LC E LC E LCE LC E LC E LC E LC E LC E LC E LCE LC E LC E LCE LCE LCE LCE LC ECECE LCEEELCECCCC ELCEEE LC E LC E LC E E LC EEEE LCELCECECL E LC CE EEE LC E LC LC E LC E EEE LCCCLCCLC LCE LCELCE LCE LCLCELCLLLCLLLLCCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCEEEL LCE LCE LC E LLCL LCE LCECEECEC LCEE LC E LC E LC E LC E LC E LC E LC E LCLC LC ECECECE LC E LC EC LCE LCE LCELCLLCLC LCEEEEEEE LCLCLCLCL CECECELCEELCLCELC CE LC E LCCE E LCLLCLLCLCLCLC LC E L LC LC E EE CLC E C E C E C E CC E C E E E CEEE LC LC ELCELCELCLCLLC LCLCCLCLCLLL CE EEEE LC E E LC E CCCC E C E C ELCECE LCE LCE LCE E LCEL E LCECE LCE LCECE LCE LCLCE ELCELC CELC CELCE CLLCC LCLCEE LCLCE ECEEE CCCC LCECEECEE LC CEC CE CE CCE LCE LC LC E E LL CCE LL CECE E CE LC CLC LLCC E ECE LLC LC E CEC CC LC E E L LL ECE LC EEEE LCCE LC E LCCEC E L C E LC E CE LC E LC E LC E LCLCLC E C L E CELC E LCE C E LCE LCE LCELLELCECE LCE LCE LCE CE LC LC E LCE LCE CCCE LCE C L CE LLCE LCELC E LC LCCE CE LCLCCLC CCE CE CECCC SI T E M A P NT S RE A C H S 2 RE A C H S 1 RE A C H S 3 SH E E T N U M B E R : REVISIONS: RELEASED FOR: PLOT DATE:PR O J E C T N U M B E R : PR O J E C T M A N A G E R : DE S I G N E D : DR A W N : CH E C K E D : SE A L RE S O U R C E E N V I R O N M E N T A L S O L U T I O N S , L L C 36 0 0 G L E N W O O D A V E , S U I T E 1 0 0 RA L E I G H , N C 2 7 6 1 2 As c e n s i o n L a n d Su r v e y i n g P . C . Pr o f e s s i o n a l L a n d Su r v e y i n g & C o n s u l t i n g 11 6 W i l l i a m s R o a d Mo c k s v i l l e , N C 2 7 0 2 8 Ph o n e : ( 7 0 4 ) 5 7 9 - 7 1 9 7 Em a i l : s u r v e y o r . c h r i s 0 0 7 @ g m a i l . c o m DO G T O W N S T R E A M M I T I G A T I O N S I T E CA T A W B A C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A CA T A W B A R I V E R B A S I N : H U C 0 3 0 5 0 1 0 1 JA N U A R Y 2 0 2 4 AS-BUILT SURVEY DRAWINGS 2 O F 2 10 0 1 4 8 CL C CL C TR S BR C AS - B U I L T P L A N I M E T R I C S S U R V E Y P R O V I D E D B Y AS C E N S I O N L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P C ( N C F I R M L I C E N S E NU M B E R C - 4 2 8 8 , C H R I S T O P H E R L . C O L E , N C P L S L- 5 0 0 8 ) , D A T E D A P R I L 2 3 , 2 0 2 3 . DE S I G N E D B Y : RE S O U R C E E N V I R O N M E N T A L S O L U T I O N S , L L C 36 0 0 G L E N W O O D A V E , S U I T E 1 0 0 RA L E I G H , N C 2 7 6 1 2 SU R V E Y E D B Y : AS C E N S I O N L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P C 11 6 W I L L I A M S R O A D MO C K S V I L L E , N C 2 7 0 2 8 PR O J E C T D I R E C T O R Y I, C H R I S T O P H E R L . C O L E , C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A T W A S D R A W N U N D E R M Y SU P E R V I S I O N F R O M A N A C T U A L S U R V E Y M A D E U N D E R M Y S U P E R V I S I O N ( F R O M DE E D S S H O W N O N T H E F A C E O F T H I S P L A T ) ; T H A T T H E B O U N D A R I E S N O T S U R V E Y E D AR E C L E A R L Y I N D I C A T E D A S D R A W N F R O M I N F O R M A T I O N F O U N D I N ( D E E D S S H O W N ON T H E F A C E O F T H I S P L A T ) ; T H A T T H E R A T I O O F P R E C I S I O N O R P O S I T I O N A L AC C U R A C Y A S C A L C U L A T E D I S 1 : 1 0 , 0 0 0 ' ; T H A T T H I S P L A T W A S P R E P A R E D I N AC C O R D A N C E W I T H G . S . 4 7 - 3 0 A S A M E N D E D A N D T H A T T H I S S U R V E Y I S O F AN O T H E R C A T E G O R Y , S U C H A S T H E R E C O M B I N A T I O N O F E X I S T I N G P A R C E L S , A CO U R T - O R D E R E D S U R V E Y , O R O T H E R E X E M P T I O N O R E X C E P T I O N T O T H E D E F I N I T I O N OF S U B D I V I S I O N . WI T N E S S M Y O R I G I N A L S I G N A T U R E , R E G I S T R A T I O N L I C E N S E N U M B E R A N D S E A L T H I S 12 T H D A Y O F F E B R U A R Y , A . D . , 2 0 2 4 . CH R I S T O P H E R L . C O L E L - 5 0 0 8 TH E P U R P O S E O F T H I S S U R V E Y I S T O SH O W T H E B U F F E R Z O N E S O N T H E DO G T O W N M I T I G A T I O N S I T E . N O PR O P E R T Y L I N E S O R E A S E M E N T L I N E S WE R E S U R V E Y E D A T T H I S T I M E . BA K E R S C R E E K LE G E N D 0- 5 0 F T R E S T O R A T I O N B U F F E R 51 - 1 0 0 F T R E S T O R A T I O N B U F F E R 0- 5 0 F T P R E S E R V A T I O N B U F F E R 15 1 - 2 0 0 F T P R E S E R V A T I O N B U F F E R Ri p a r i a n M i t i g a t i o n C r e d i t i n g Z o n e s Zo n e Mi t i g a t i o n T y p e To t a l A r e a ( S F ) Re s t o r e d P o n d Fo o t p r i n t Re s t o r a t i o n 81 , 1 0 7 0- 5 0 F T R e s t o r a t i o n 51 9 , 2 3 4 51 - 1 0 0 F T Re s t o r a t i o n 10 , 4 3 2 0- 5 0 F T P r e s e r v a t i o n 47 8 , 9 5 9 15 1 - 2 0 0 F T Pr e s e r v a t i o n 19 0 , 7 3 1 51 - 1 5 0 F T US A C E E x t e n d e d B u f f e r 1, 0 2 2 , 9 9 5 RE S T O R E D P O N D A R E A 51 - 1 5 0 F T U S A C E E X T E N D E D B U F F E R Ch r i s t o p h e r L . C o l e Di g i t a l l y s i g n e d b y C h r i s t o p h e r L . C o l e Da t e : 2 0 2 4 . 0 2 . 1 2 2 0 : 3 6 : 5 1 - 0 5 ' 0 0 ' Appendix B Vegetation Assessment Data Appendix B. Vegetation Assessment Data Table 2a. Planted Species Summary Common Name Scientific Quantity Planted % Composition River Birch Betula nigra 3900 15 Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 2600 10 Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 2600 10 American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 3900 15 Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 2600 10 Water Oak Quercus nigra 3900 15 Willow Oak Quercus phellos 3900 15 Northern red Oak Quercus rubra 2600 10 Table 2b. Planted Seed Mix Summary Common Name Scientific % Composition Virginia Wildrye Elymus virginicus 25 Indian Grass Sorghastrum nutans 25 Little Blue Stem Schizachyrum scopanum 10 Soft Rush Juncus effusus 10 Blackeyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta 10 Deer Tongue Diacnthelum clandestinum 10 Common Milkweed Asclepias synaca 5 Showy Goldenrod Solidago erecta 5 Appendix B. Vegetation Assessment Data Table 3. Main Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Volunteer Stems/Acre Total Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met? Average Planted Stem Height (ft) 1 567 0 567 Yes 1.5 2 567 0 567 Yes 1.6 3 688 0 688 Yes 1.4 4 647 0 647 Yes 1.5 5 607 0 607 Yes 1.6 6 688 0 688 Yes 1.2 7 445 0 445 Yes 1.5 8 769 0 769 Yes 1.3 9 769 0 769 Yes 1.4 10 647 0 647 Yes 1.4 11 728 0 728 Yes 1.5 12 769 0 769 Yes 1.3 13 688 0 688 Yes 1.4 14 567 0 567 Yes 1.2 15 526 0 526 Yes 1.0 16 567 0 567 Yes 1.5 17 769 0 769 Yes 1.5 18 688 0 688 Yes 1.5 19 567 0 567 Yes 1.3 20 607 0 607 Yes 1.4 21 647 0 647 Yes 1.0 22 486 0 486 Yes 1.5 Project Avg 636 0 614 Yes 1.4 Appendix B. Vegetation Assessment Data Table 4. Main Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species Current Plot Data (MY0 2023) Scientific Name Common Name Speci es Type 100148-01-0001 100148-01-0002 100148-01-0003 100148-01-0004 100148-01-0005 100148-01-0006 100148-01-0007 100148-01-0008 100148-01-0009 100148-01-0010 100148-01-0011 PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T PnoL S P- all T Betula nigra river birch Tree 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 5 5 5 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 8 8 8 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 2 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 6 6 6 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stem count 14 14 14 14 14 14 17 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 15 17 17 17 11 11 11 19 19 19 19 19 19 16 16 16 18 18 18 size (ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Species count 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 8 8 8 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 6 6 6 Stems per ACRE 567 56 7 56 7 567 56 7 56 7 688 68 8 68 8 647 64 7 64 7 607 60 7 60 7 688 68 8 68 8 445 44 5 44 5 769 76 9 76 9 769 76 9 76 9 647 64 7 64 7 728 72 8 72 8 Appendix B. Vegetation Assessment Data Current Plot Data (MY0 2023) Annual Means Scientific Name Common Name Speci es Type 100148-01- 0012 100148-01- 0013 100148-01- 0014 100148-01- 0015 100148-01- 0016 100148-01- 0017 100148-01- 0018 100148-01- 0019 100148-01- 0020 100148-01- 0021 100148-01- 0022 MY0 (2023) Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Pno LS P- all T Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 6 6 6 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 7 7 7 71 71 71 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 23 23 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 28 28 28 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 45 45 45 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 42 42 42 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 5 5 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 45 45 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 45 45 45 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 47 47 47 Stem count 19 19 19 17 17 17 14 14 14 13 13 13 14 14 14 19 19 19 17 17 17 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 12 12 12 346 34 6 34 6 size (ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.54 Species count 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 4 4 4 8 8 8 Stems per ACRE 769 76 9 76 9 688 68 8 68 8 567 56 7 56 7 526 52 6 52 6 567 56 7 56 7 769 76 9 76 9 688 68 8 68 8 567 56 7 56 7 607 60 7 60 7 647 64 7 64 7 486 48 6 48 6 636 63 6 63 6 Appendix C Project Photos Dogtown MY0 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos Vegetation Plot 1 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 2 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 3 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 4 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 5 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 6 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 7 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 8 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 9 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 10 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 11 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 12 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 13 (Restored Pond Footprint) (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 14 (Restored Pond Footprint) (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 15 (Restored Pond Footprint) (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 16 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 17 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 18 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 19 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 20 (03/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 21 (03/10/2023) Vegetation Plot 22 (03/10/2023) Dogtown Stream Mitigation Work Riffle S1-A (1/05/23) Riffle S2-B (1/05/23) Pool S2-B (1/05/23) Riffle S3-B (1/05/23) Appendix D Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets Appendix E Adaptive Management Plan 2 August 25, 2023 Katie Merritt Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality RE: Dogtown Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank (DWR 2018-1097 V2) Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank – Year 0 Monitoring Adaptive Management Memo Dear Ms. Merritt, Through the implementation of the Dogtown Riparian Buffer Bank Project, thus far, only minor maintenance and site preparation activities have been performed in order to create and maintain a high functioning stream and riparian buffer system. Maintenance activities within the 61.04-acre conservation easement, up to this point, have included: • Invasive species management - June 2023 • Mowing and disking post construction - February/March 2023 • Conservation Easement Posts installed – March/August 2023 During the As-Built site walk, April 26th, 2023, DWR officials noticed: • Areas lacking in sufficient stem density were observed in multiple areas and need to be planted. o RES will conduct a supplemental planting of roughly 1.11 acres across several areas within the riparian planting zone where there have been concerns about the stem density. Species used will be from the approved BPDP. Planting will occur in Fall/Winter 2023 prior to year one monitoring additional vegetation monitoring transects will be performed in the supplemental planting areas and results will be included in the MY1 report. • Easement boundary was not adequately marked in some areas. o RES has installed additional easement posts in areas where it exceeds 200 feet in between posts and in areas where further clarification concerning the easement is needed. Placards have been installed facing outwards from the easement on all posts. Work was completed the week of August 7th, 2023. • Unmanaged vegetation (vines, blackberry, fennel, herbaceous, fallen trees) was present and these areas were observed to be void of planted stems or lacking in sufficient stem density. Transects will be necessary to prove planted stem density if EBX is proposing not to plant in these areas. o RES will mow or physically cut existing vegetation in both areas outlined in DWR’s comment letter prior to supplemental planting. RES will plant 160 bare roots or container trees from the approved planting list within Area 3 (0.19 acres) and Area 2 (0.39 acres) will be planted with 310 stems from top of bank out. Existing canopy trees will remain. Both areas will have two separate vegetation monitoring transects per location performed during MY1 to ensure its stem density is adequate and the species planted will be drawn from the approved planting list. RES staff have calculated desired stem densities to ensure the site meets success criteria. Planted supplementary stems will include sourcing as much as possible from the original planting list. Focal areas are outlined below and correspond by number with the attached maps. Upon approval of this plan, RES would like to conduct these maintenance activities in Fall/Winter 2023. Photographs of all completed items and supplemental vegetation data proposed in this AMP will be included in the Monitoring Year One Report. Thank you, Benton Carroll | Project Manager DOGTOWN RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION SITE Adaptive Management Plan 2023 CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Catawba River Basin 03050101 DWR Project # 2018-1097v2 Provided by: Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc and Exchange (EBX) An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 919-209-1055 August 2023 1 Attachments • Figure 1a – Adaptive Management Problem Areas (Dogtown North) • Figure 1b – Adaptive Management Problem Areas (Dogtown North) • Problem Area Photos • Proposed Tree Species Summary • Map of Easement Signage added in August 2023. 3 Summary of Adaptive Management Plan Goals Areas 1, 2, and 3 were all believed to have insufficient stem density based on the 280 planted trees per acre success criteria. Area 1 (Figure 1a – Dogtown North) had dense stands of pollinator friendly wildflowers and bare roots were challenging to find while conducting the site walk. This area also had sporadic inundated areas which was believed to be a contributing factor towards the density of planted stems. RES will replant this area to ensure it meets proper stem density numbers. Area 2 is located in the downstream right flood plain of Bakers Creek on Figure 1b – Dogtown South, this area was not managed for vegetation prior to planting so stems were planted around fallen trees and cane or vine growth as the planting subcontractors worked through the site. RES will replant this area after excessive and nuisance vegetation is cleared to ensure it meets the success criteria. Area 3 is located opposite Bakers Creek from Area 2 (Figure 1b – Dogtown South), this area contains a mature tree canopy from top of bank up to 15 feet out. The understory of this vegetated area consists of blackberry and vined vegetation the planting crew did not plant sufficiently. RES will replant this area after excessive and nuisance vegetation is cleared to ensure it meets the success criteria. Easement signage throughout the site was missing at the time of the As-Built site walk and several areas needed additional posts installed for clarity and to ensure that there was an easement placard at least every 200 feet. Description of Proposed Corrective Measures Area 1 Issue: Area lacking in sufficient stem density (NCDWR Photos 9&10). Cause: Low stem density planting, potential tree die off, inundated roots causing die off, low visibility. Treatment: RES will replant the 0.53 acre area with 420 bare roots or container trees at a spacing consistent with an 800 stems per acre density. RES will plant species originally accepted in the BPDP. The supplemental planting will occur in Fall or early Winter of 2023 prior to monitoring year one. RES will perform two separate vegetation monitoring transects during MY1 to ensure its stem density is adequate and provide results and photographs within the MY1 report. Area 2 Issue: Low stem density area (NCDWR Photos 3&6). Cause: Unmanaged vegetation (vines, blackberry, fennel, herbaceous, fallen trees) was present and these areas were observed to be void of planted stems or lacking in sufficient stem density. Treatment: RES will mow or manually cut/clear the existing nuisance vegetation in this area prior to supplemental planting. RES will plant at a density of 800 stems/acre resulting in 310 bare roots or container trees from the approved planting list planted within this 0.39 acre area. This area will have two separate vegetation monitoring transects performed during MY1 to ensure its stem density is adequate. All results and photographs will be included in the monitoring year one report. Area 3 Issue: Low stem density area (NCDWR Photos 2&7). Cause: Existing vegetation not managed prior to planting. Treatment: RES will mow or manually cut/clear existing vegetation in this area prior to supplemental planting. Existing canopy trees will remain. Plant 160 bare roots or container trees from the approved planting list within this 0.19 acre area from top of bank out to roughly 15 feet where it ties into the previously planted area. This area will have two separate vegetation monitoring transects performed during MY1 to ensure its stem density is adequate. All results and photographs will be included in the monitoring year one report. 4 Conservation Easement Signage Issue: Easement posts did not have placards installed and some areas were greater than the 200 foot maximum spacing requirement (NCDWR Photo 1). Cause: Signs were not installed and a misunderstanding with the contractor on easement post spacing resulted in fewer posts than required. Treatment: Additional easement posts have been added in areas where it exceeds 200 feet in between posts and in areas where further clarification is desired. RES has installed posts and placards facing outwards on all posts from within the conservation easement. Photographs of easement signage and posts are included in the attachments along with a map concerning additional easement signage added in August 2023. Photos of each problem area are found in the Attachments. S1-B S2-A S3-B S1-A S3-A S2-B 9 3 8 7 2 5 4 3 2 1 1 6 NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis © Figure 1a - AMP CCPVDogtown Nor th DogtownMitigation Project Catawba County,North Carolina Date: 8/2/2023 Drawn by: DGD Document Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\100148_Dogtown_Bank\MXD\6_MonitoringMaintenance\MY0\DWR MY0\A MP_Layout_North_USACE_MY0-_Dogtown_Bank_CCPV_1.mxd Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world 1:3,000 Legend Dogtown Easement Vegetation Plot Within Buffer Mitigation Area Vegetation Plot Outside of Buffer Mitigation Area Supplemental Planting Clearing/Supplemental Planting Restoration Enhancement II Enhancement III (10) Enhancement III (7.5 Preservation 0 400200 Feet Checked by: RTM Area 1 - Supplemental Planting ~ 0.53 acres ~420 Stems DT3-B DT2 DT1-B BakersCreek DT2-B DT2 DT2-A DT4 DT1-ADT1-A DT3-A DT3-B 12 13 14 15 22 21 20 19 11 10 18 17 16 NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis © Figure 1b - AMP CCPVDogtown South DogtownMitigation Project Catawba County,North Carolina Date: 8/14/2023 Drawn by: DGD Document Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\100148_Dogtown_Bank\MXD\6_MonitoringMaintenance\MY0\DWR MY0\A MP_Layout_USACE_MY0-_Dogtown_Bank_CCPV_1.mxd Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world 1:3,000 0 400200 Feet Legend Dogtown Easement Vegetation Plot Within Buffer Mitigation Area Vegetation Plot Outside of Buffer Mitigation Area Supplemental Planting Clearing/Supplemental Planting Restoration Enhancement II Enhancement III (10) Enhancement III (7.5 Preservation Checked by: RTM Vegetative Clearing and Supplemental Planting ~0.39 acres ~ 310 Stems Vegetation Clearing and Supplemental Planting ~ 0.19 acres~160 Stems Dogtown Problem Area Photos Area 1 – Low Stem Density (4/26/2023) Area 1 – Low Stem Density (4/26/2023) Area 2 – Vegetative Management & Low Stem Density (4/26/2023) Area 2 – Vegetative Management & Low Stem Density (4/26/2023) Area 3 – Vegetative Management & Low Stem Density (4/26/2023) Area 3 – Vegetative Management & Low Stem Density (4/26/2023) Improper Easement Signage Placement Corrected Easement Signage Photos Proposed Tree Species Summary – Dogtown Mi�ga�on Site Common Name Scientific River Birch Betula nigra Sugarberry Celtis laevigata Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii Water Oak Quercus nigra Willow Oak Quercus phellos Northern red Oak Quercus rubra