20131262 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report Final_2018_20190225

Mitigation
L.
Project
Information
UpI(
ID#*
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review 02/26/2019
Completed Date
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/25/201, -
Version *
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? *
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r` Stream r- Wetlands W Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Raymond Holz
Project Information
Existing 20131262
(DWR) (nunbers only no dash)
ID#:*
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Pepperwood Farm
County: Wake
Document Information
r Yes r
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing
Version: (nurnbersonly)
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Plans
File Upload: FINAL_Pepperwood Farm _MY5_2018.pdf 5.73MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Raymond Holz
Signature:
'e

YEAR 5 (2018) ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
PEPPERWOOD FARM RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION SITE
Wake County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID: 95713
Contract No. 004946, DWR Project No. 2013-1262
Data Collected August -October 2018
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
November 2018

Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary.............................................................................................. 2
2.0 Methodology...................................................................................................... 3
3.0 References.........................................................................................................3
Appendices
Appendix A: Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Component and Asset
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes Table
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photos
Fixed Photo Points
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Based on Planted Stems
Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Appendix D: Additional Data
Figure 4. Watershed Map
Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map
Preconstruction Photographs
Appendix E: Herbicide Treatment Logs
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Table of Contents
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

1.0 Executive Summary
This Annual Monitoring Report describes the Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site (Site) and
is designed specifically to assist in fulfilling the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
riparian buffer mitigation goals within the Neuse 03020201 Watershed. Completed project activities,
reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4
(Appendix A). This report (compiled based on the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for DMS Monitoring Reports Version 1.5 dated 6/8/12)
summarizes data for Year 5 (2018) monitoring.
The Site is located approximately 1 mile northeast of Willow Springs and 4 miles northeast of Fuquay-
Varina, in Wake County, North Carolina (Figure 1, Appendix A). The project is situated within the Middle
Creek watershed (United States Geological Society (USGS) 14 -digit Hydrologic Cataloging Unit (HUC)
03020201120010 of the Neuse River Basin and North Carolina Division of Water Resource (NC DWR)
Sub -basin 03-04-03). This sub -basin was identified by the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
(NC DWR) as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW).
The Site encompasses 12.66 acres and is protected in perpetuity by three conservation easements recorded
at the Wake County Register of Deeds on 11/25/2013. The Site protects five unnamed tributaries with direct
hydrologic connection to Terrible Creek, DWR Stream Index Number 27-43-15-8-(2) and a Best Usage
Classification of C, NSW. Prior to restoration activities, riparian areas were cleared of native forest
vegetation, heavily degraded by livestock grazing and hoof shear, maintained for hay production, and
subject to raw manure fertilization. Streams were straightened, routinely cleared, and subject to storm water
runoff from boarding facilities.
The primary goal of this riparian buffer restoration project is to provide 10.70 Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Units (RBMUl). The success of this goal is based on the following.
1. Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities including a)
removal of horses from riparian areas; b) eliminating the application of fertilizer, pesticides, and
other agricultural materials into and adjacent to streams; and c) establishing a vegetative buffer
adjacent to streams to treat surface runoff, which may contain pollutants such as sediment and/or
agricultural pollutants from the adjacent landscape.
2. Reducing sedimentation onsite and downstream by a) reducing bank erosion associated with
vegetation maintenance and b) planting a diverse hardwood vegetative buffer adjacent to Site
tributaries.
3. Stabilizing stream banks where necessary by sloping channel banks, and installing erosion
control matting and livestakes.
4. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed shading and natural detritus input.
5. Providing a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area continually being developed for
commercial and residential use.
6. Restoring and reestablishing natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional
continuity.
7. Protecting the Site's full potential of stream and riparian buffer functions and values in perpetuity.
Accomplishing this criterion is a multi-year process. Restoration activities outlined in the Pepperwood Farm
Mitigation Plan were implemented during February and March of 2014. Activities included the installation
of a shallow marsh treatment area, stabilization of stream banks, planting of riparian areas with bare root
hardwood seedlings, removal of livestock from riparian areas, and protecting the Site in perpetuity with a
conservation easement. Additionally, the Site has been surveyed and marked per NCDMS guidelines by a
licensed NC surveyor.
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site page 2
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Vegetation Success Criteria
Success of vegetation criteria at the Site indicates successful restoration of riparian areas adjacent to subject
streams as well as improvement of overall water quality resulting from the treatment of runoff from
agricultural fields. Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of planted tree species.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of planted species must be surviving after five monitoring years
in accordance with NC Division of Water Resources Administrative Code 15A NCAC 0213.0242 (Neuse
River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy).
2.0 Methodology
Monitoring of vegetation restoration efforts will follow Level 2 CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and will be conducted between June 1 and October 30. Site
monitoring will be conducted at thirteen (13) vegetation monitoring plots representing 3.6% of the 10.7
acres of restored buffer. Monitoring reports will be reported to the NC DMS annually for a minimum of 5
years or until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring parameters will include species composition and
density. Visual observations to ascertain the degree of shrub and herbaceous species, including overtopping
of seedlings will be documented with photos and included in the annual monitoring report (Appendix Q.
Year 5 (2018) monitoring data was collected in October 2018 by Axiom Environmental and measured an
average density of 389 planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes) on Site, with ten out of thirteen CVS
monitoring plots exceeding success criteria based on planted stems alone (Appendix Q. However, when
including natural recruits of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and eastern baccharis (Baccharis
halimifolia) in Plot 4, natural recruits of persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), and water oak (Quercus nigra) in Plot 12, and natural recruits of tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) in Plot 13, these plots were well -above success criteria.
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site page 3
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

3.0 References
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation
Services. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2014. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2014 303(d) Report) (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment [March 2014]. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2010. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2010 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/draft_2010_ Cat _5.pdf [February 1, 2011]. North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2010. River Restoration Priorities Executive
Summary (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get file?uuid=665be84c-
cf93-477b-918c-1993778eflif&groupId=60329 [March 2014]. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site page 4
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Appendix A: Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Component and Asset
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes Table
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

I`
C
y}
y�
J
ark 7
16,
• .
i d.,
-J
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Scale 1:80,000
r
ad
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
VICINITY MAP
Dwn. By:
KRJ
FIGURE
PEPPERWOOD FARM
Date:
Oct 2014
RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION SITE
Wake County, North Carolina
Project:
11 10-001

Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site, Wake County NC DMS Project ID 95713
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site, Wake County NC DMS Project ID 95713
Activity or Report
Mitigation Credits
Completion or Delivery
Neuse Riparian Buffer
Existing
Acreage
Restoration/
Mit. Ratio
Restoration
Acreage
Mitigation
/ Acre
Comment
.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
Existing forested area — excluded from credit determination
10.70
Restoration
(1:1)
10.70
43,560 sq. ft.
/ acre
Cessation of current land use practices, removing invasive
species, and planting with native forest vegetation.
March 2014
Component Summation
Restoration Level
October 2014
Neuse Riparian Buffer Credits (sq. ft.)
Restoration
October 2015
10.70 acres = 466,092 sq. ft.
Totals
October 2016
10.70 acres = 466,092 sq. ft.
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site, Wake County NC DMS Project ID 95713
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Delivery
CE Document
NA
August 131, 2013
Conservation Easement
NA
November 25`h, 2013
Mitigation Plan
NA
January 301, 2014
Earthwork
NA
March 51, 2014
Bare Root Planting
NA
March 13th, 2014
Baseline Monitoring Document
March 2014
May 5th, 2014
Year 1 (2014) Annual Monitoring Report
October 2014
October 201, 2014
Year 2 (2015) Annual Monitoring Report
October 2015
December 2015
Year 3 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
October 2016
November 2016
Year 4 (2017) Annual Monitoring Report
October 2017
November 2017
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report
October 2018
October 2018
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Table 3: Project Contact Table
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site, Wake County NC DMS Project ID 95713
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018
Firm
POC & Address
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems, LLC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
George Howard and John Preyer
919.755.9490
Raymond Holz: 919.755.9490
Designer:
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Lloyd Glover; 919.422.3392
Earthwork Contractor:
Land Mechanics, Inc.
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592-7756
Mary -Margaret McKinney
Planting Contractor:
Carolina Silvics
252.333.9852
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
Lloyd Glover; 919.422.3392
Seeding Contractor:
Land Mechanics, Inc.
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592-7756
Nursery Stock Suppliers:
ArborGen
1.888.888.7158
Baseline Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Fant Lewis; 919.215.1693
218 Snow Ave. Raleigh, NC 27603
Vegetation Monitoring:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Grant Lewis; 919.215.1693
218 Snow Ave. Raleigh, NC 27603
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Table 4: Project Baseline Information & Attributes Table
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site, Wake County NC DMS Project ID 95713
Project Information
Project Name
Pepperwood Farm
County
Wake
Project Area (acres)
12.66
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.617249°N, -78.715332°W (NAD83/WGS84)
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Northern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
3020201
USGS Hydrologic Unitl4-digit
3020201120010
DWR Sub -basin
3/4/2003
Project Drainage Area, Total Outfall (acres)
285.45
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious
Area
>5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
No
Waters of the United States — Section 401
No
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)]
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photos
Fixed Photo Points
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

101
• .,1 ';-�-�"°; � !f .� ' • y, — „^.: #+� • t�'�, " r � .� 5��1 � • s,�t - n.r��+EmrkanmeM�Inc.
�.
4 Prepared for:
i
RESTORATION
FP 03
SYSTEMS 1 LLC
G Y
t-0
P
r
'` - Project:
PP 05aw
10
g
f Y F
_ _ - . � _. � _ ;`;�-t,::�y •�i PEPPERWOOD FARM
PP-07
RIPARIAN BUFFER
PP 02 `�-.8 4 MITIGATION SITE
L
Wake County, NC
a - jTtle:
CURRENT CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
40--
r
41 [ �,
i J 4' Notes:
1. Background imagery source:
2013 CGIAorthoimagery
�• ^ PP 06
2
M.
c L'14-}� h �L �+ Ya'T�. t r�µµrrll - y1 _•'
iy J�• FK �a� �� R _ tl
*PP08
< y F
Legend
t. Easement Boundary ,A� _ I• F � ' � a ,., �'.• • � �+ • �',;.:
let
Streams , . f -. tt + A�'-''7' ,� ,:: �' `+..�.F,.•-
.gg KRJ/CLF
�q ^�c.�i'+.�v. v >_'�• y ��, l :r*, 1r '� '�, Drawn by:
ham' ,..• .2.a - r A.•-,�±':•
CVS Plots Meeting Success Criteria ,i •� �.- 1 Date: Oct 2018
9s * ;, r
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria,+�"=' Scale: As shown
0 9
•. F:.•,.i: "t..t, �.- „c wj Project No.: 10-001
Photo Points 1 1.r �' ;r
►.F ; T a
I�''n'' rr �� _'�r� �r .�-o�� 'a'•'��.r k .r�- yi��. �� s.�r 1.
:.> r is �''., 4
E Farm Parcels �; apt, ., fi ►' '+ F`} r r�
k. 0 FIGURE
250 500 1,000 •1,500..,
• ,� ••.}'`� ''�j, 'hL °l 1 d •' :r�•' y`�' .7q. '�'�,',` � 5; �f � 'a' r ' '1 `�� - ,7'7 , _ f f S •o-�
Feet; .�.2
LL. ,4.

Pepperwood
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 10.7
Ve etation Cateqory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
1 0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreaae 12.66
Ve etation Cateqory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Pol ons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
None
1000 SF
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
None
none
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Ilkley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics
are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be
mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the
narrative section of the executive summary.

Pepperwood Farm
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2018
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Pepperwood Farm
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2018
(continued)
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Pepperwood Farm
Fixed Photo Points
Taken October 2018
Photo Point 5
FPhoto Point 4
E
,y
. Photo Point 6
Photo Point 8
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Based on Planted Stems
Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Based on Planted Stems
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site, Wake County NC DMS Project ID 95713
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1 Yes
77%
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 No*
5 Yes
6 Yes
7 Yes
8 Yes
9 Yes
10 Yes
11 Yes
12 No*
13 No**
* When including natural recruits of sweetgum (Liquidambar styracii lua) and eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia) Plot 4 was well -above
success criteria.
**When including natural recruits of persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and water oak (Quercus nigra)
Plot 12 was well -above success criteria.
***When including natural recruits of tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Plot 13 was well -above success
criteria.
Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site, Wake County NC DMS Project ID 95713
Report Prepared By
Corri Fa uin
Date Prepared
10/26/2018 16:34
database name
RS -Pe erwood-2018-A-v2.3.l.mdb
database location
S:\Business\Projects\10\10-001 RS 10 Monitoring\Pepperwood Year 0-5\2018
Year 5\CVS
computer name
KEENAN-PC
file size
49180672
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s)
and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This
excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems,
missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor bSpp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent
of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and
SPP
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;
dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural
volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
123
project Name
Pepperwood
River basin
Neuse
Sampled Plots
13
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 10-001. Project Name: Pepperwood
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 = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY5 2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
123-01-0001
PnoLSFP-all T
123-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
123-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
123-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
123-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T
123-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
123-01-0007
PnoLS P -all T
123-01-0008
PnoLS P -all T
123-01-0009
PnoLS P -all T
123-01-0010
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
41
1
1
3
2
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Carya
hickory
Tree
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
1
1
1
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
Tree
Celtis
hackberry
Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
7
1
1
DONTKNOW: unsure record
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
1
4
7
4
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
31
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2 2
2
7
7
7
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
7
6 61
7
11
11
41
41
4
3
3
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
10
404.
71
1
LO.
15
7
607
10
4
404.7
10 14
1
0.02
4 8
404.7 566.6
12
5
485.6
12 27
1
0.02
5 8
485.6 1093
7
6
283.3
7
1
0.02
6
283.3
15
8
6071404.71
10
5
10 14
1
0.02
5 7
404.71 566.61526.11
13
7
131 23
1
0.02
7 10
526.11 930.81323.71
81 81
1
0.02
2 2
323.71
17
4
6881404.71
101
4
101 11
1
0.02
4 5
404.71 445.21404.71
101
4
101 10
1
0.02
4 4
404.71 404.71404.71
10
1
0.02
4
10 14
4 6
404.71 566.6
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 = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (Continued)
Project Code 10-001. Project Name: Pepperwood
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%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY5 2018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
123-01-0011
PnoLSFP-all T
123-01-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
123-01-0013
Pnol-S P -all T
MY5 (2018)
PnoLS P -all T
MY4 (2017)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY3 (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2014)
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
2
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
1
1
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
3
4
21
12
3
7
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
3
11
4
4
4
42
42
42
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
13
13
13
8
8
8
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
5
5
5
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
6
6
6
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
Tree
3
3
3
Celtis
hackberry
Tree
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
6
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
14
14
14
25
25
25
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
10
3
1
4
3
DONTKNOW: unsure record
1
1
1
3
3
3
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
3 3
3
15
15
16
17
17
18
19
19
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
23
23
23
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
14
38
43
29
84
116
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
5
7
7
12
9
9
9
8
8
9
11
11
12
16
16
17
17
17
17
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
3
4
2
4
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
4
4
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
3
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
2
3
5
5
5
9
9
9
24
24
24
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
2 2
2
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
9
9
9
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
22
22
22
25
25
25
24
24
24
25
25
25
21
21
21
16
16
16
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
1
4
5
3
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
6
6
6
1 1
1
2
2
2
40
401
44
41
41
49
42
42
42
451
451
47
451
45
45
17
17
17
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
11
1
0.02
51
445.2
11
51
445.2
15
8
607
7 7 13
1
0.02
41 41 8
283.3 283.3 526.1
7 7 33
1
0.02
3 3 71
283.3 283.3 1335
125
131
389.1
1251
13
0.32
131
389.1
221
221
688
1391
141
432.7
1391 218
13
0.32
141 22
432.7 678.6
140
141
435.8
140 189
13
0.32
14 22111
435.8 588.4
1431
445.2
1431 258
13
0.32
111 17
445.21 803.11
1641
121
510.51
1641 294
13
0.32
121 19
510.51 915.2
207
171
644.41
207 207
13
0.32
17 17
644.4 644.4
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%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Appendix D: Additional Data
Figure 4. Watershed Map
Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map
Preconstruction Photographs
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

H
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC SCALE: 1 inch = 1,042 feet
FIGURE 4.
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211 DATE: NOV -2013
RFP # 16-004362 EEP Project ID 95713
RALEIGH, NC 27604
WATERSHED MAP
Contract # 004946 SPO #92-AGZ
PHONE : [phone] PROJECT: P -WOOD
Wake County, North Carolina
FAX: [phone]
Tore map and all data contained wimin are euppred ae a with no warranty. rzeetoratron systems, LLC expressly
dlsolaime reepoae WRY ror der""" or lianirtytram eny aa�me that may odea out ohne uee or mieuee tram aay chime
that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on
this map Is compatible with the user's needs. This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be used as such.
It is the users responsibility to obtain proper survey data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required bylaw.
Figure indicates estimated project drainage
area at the outfall of each tributary.
Aerial Imagery: USGS Topographical Map
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 NC FEET

�HrC2VVMIE
r
t Ilia e Cm r Ge Ce62
• � ;111�n1 �
ApD��y •fir Au " ZA
q w. +!! AfA —� 4
r++ CgC Fa B2 �` f`
ap i
06 Cm C4
CeD
CeF m
4 , f' z; Ce❑ f 1NrnE AfA CeF f a A
CeF T
q t7 .. r.• {..EU C W❑
GiB �� i�U L J I
m rAPB2
N
U _MQ..- i `ti Cm Flu WmENIN
Gri82 I WD2 �.
Gest Ase2
C_e82 Ce82 �
Ge82 A8C2 7;: • - 'CI � Crt1 _
a e ❑ FaS,
• � �' � C n r
A 2 U AR02 c RsR7 L'eCP AfA 4VmE
a UT -2
)Fi 1 f m UT - 3 l CeC2 Au Au
a 1 CeB2 F:W Cn
ell
Hre7 m
Pel j �� � Wo
jj UT - 1 Rs132 Ase 110
AsB
t AsB �ti Me UT - 4 Gep RAa C7
a cnf,
wy AsG Apupub 1 UT - 5 �
C(fl
APB Au y APC2 Ce62 AfA �rJ
—{ WoAgC 1
App �.� AfA AfA CeC2
W(J Itu r
r
a
r HrC2 CeF Au Ali
Cr,F
CeT77 HrC ryyf� nee —in
Jr
a m CeF
Q HrC t Gm i HrD2
} `L WrnE Wm
Q HrB WwF —
H r6 f Orb ApC 0 rC? WaL`Ic
OrR2 i A— W❑ ` A O. o m 3 O
Z GeB2 Wa6 p
(loins sheet 99)
1970 Wake County North Carolina NRCS Soil Manuscript - Map Number 92 - FIGURE NOT TO SCALE
N
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC SCALE:
FIGURE 5: N RCS
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211 DATE: NOV-2013
RFP # 16-004362 EEP Project ID 95713
RALEIGH, NC 27604
SOkI SurveyContract#004946
SPO #92-AGZ
PHONE: [phone] PROJECT: P -WOOD
Wake County, North Carolina
FAX, 919.755.9492
map a Supp e e e warreey, ys expr—ly
Tins and all data contained wimin ar lied a with n —rent . rzeswratroe s tame, ��c I
diaelaimareapn—WhItyVdbne,gserlieblityfremenyalIthetmayeriaeo,tothe useermisusefremenyc"'l—
that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to tletermine if the data on
this map Is compatible with the user's needs. This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be used as such.
It Is the users responsibility to obtain proper survey dela, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required bylaw.
Figure indicates where the Site h sicalP
g physical
location is along with directions to the Site
Aerial Imagery: USGS Topographical Ma
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 NC FEET

ISIS
MY
17.
i
_4L,

kpro,��* s
' '� y wee � �! , ,a.��' ►'• tiR"
I �
n + /
lw
lit
Ih / CC
IL�477
`vY

7,
12,
* SFJ- d k� a ti i� C ri y �1 E°�4aW
°-1 �A`tl� Y'.a �Y 9'i •r _V, e Soh v�_
+1-
a y`'Nt
44
� � a
• U .

Photo Point 7
Photo Point 8

Appendix E: Herbicide Application Forms
Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Appendices
Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report — October 2018

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0550
Client
Restoration Systems
Project Site
Pepperwood
Date
06-01-2018
Start Time
8:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
Yes
Sky Cover
Clear
Wind Direction
SW
Applicators
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Application Method
Basal Bark
Herbicide
Garlon0 4 (triclopyr)
Herbicide Rate (%)
15
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Privet spp.
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
Very few invasives throughout the site
(off )
Other
Other Rate/Amt
End Time
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Temp (F)
Wind Speed
Total Concentrate
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0471
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Pepperwood
Date 09-08-2017
11:00 Start Time 9:00 End Time 11:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No If NO, this is PAL # of ## 2 of 2
85 Sky Cover Clear Temp (F) 80
1-5 mph Wind Direction Wind Speed Calm
Applicators Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
29 fl oz
Diluent
Diesel fuel
Total Solution
1.5 gal.
Species Controlled
Callery Pear
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Privet spp.
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
Multiflora Rose
(off )
Sweet Gum
Area Description
Bradford Pear and Sweet Gums were around the site sporadically. Some, but not
Other Rate/Amt
many, privet in the site.
Additional Comments
Water
Application Method
Cut and Stump Spray
Herbicide
Garlon@ 3A (triclopyr)
Herbicide Rate (%)
50 Total Concentrate 10 fl oz
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
(off )
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Water
Total Solution
20 fl oz
Species Controlled
Callery Pear
Privet spp.
Area Description
Very few invasives throughout the site
Additional Comments

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0470
CarSily - 0401
Client
Restoration Systems
Client
Restoration Systems
Project Site
Pepperwood
Project Site
Pepperwood
Date
09-08-2017
Date
04-07-2017
Start Time
9:00 End Time
11:00
Start Time
9:00 End Time 11:30
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
No If NO, this is PAL # of ##
1 of 2
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
Yes If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover
Clear Temp (F)
80
Sky Cover
Cloudy Temp (F) 53
Wind Direction
Wind Speed
Calm
Wind Direction
WNW Wind Speed 6-10 mph
Applicators
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Applicators
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Application Method
Basal Bark
Application Method
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Herbicide
Garlon® 4 (triclopyr)
Herbicide
Refuge® (glyphosate)
Herbicide Rate (%)
15 Total Concentrate 76 fl oz
Herbicide Rate (%)
5 Total Concentrate
6.4 fl oz
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Hel-fire®
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
5
M
(off )
Other
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Diesel fuel
Diluent
Water
Total Solution
4 gallons
Total Solution
1 gallon
Species Controlled
Autumn Olive
Species Controlled
Callery Pear
Callery Pear
Privet spp.
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Area Description
Very few invasives throughout the site
Sweetgum
Additional Comments
Area Description
Located on a horse farm.
Additional Comments
The sweet gum at the site has been well controlled from previous treatments.
There were very few invasive species and the site was easy to walk.

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0354
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Pepperwood
Date 11-15-2016
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0238
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Pepperwood
Date 07-20-2016
Start Time
8:00 End Time
11:30
Start Time
7:30 End Time 10:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
Yes If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
Yes If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover
Clear Temp (F)
58
Sky Cover
Clear Temp (F) 83
Wind Direction
WSW Wind Speed
1-5 mph
Wind Direction
WSW Wind Speed Calm
Applicators
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Applicators
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Kemper Sutton
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Application Method
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Application Method
Basal Bark
Herbicide
Other (see comments)
Herbicide
Garlon® 4 (triclopyr)
Herbicide Rate (%)
15 Total Concentrate 80 fl oz
Herbicide Rate (%)
15 Total Concentrate
152 fl oz
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
M
(off )
Other
Blue Dye
Other
Blue Dye
Other Rate/Amt
1 fl oz
Other Rate/Amt
1 fl oz
Diluent
Diesel fuel
Diluent
Water
Total Solution
4 gallons
Total Solution
8 gallons
Species Controlled
Callery Pear
Species Controlled
Privet spp.
Privet spp.
Sweet Gum
Multiflora Rose
Sweet Gum
Area Description
Did a complete walk through of the site. The density of sweet gum decreased
dramatically since the previous treatment. Privet was under control.
Area Description
We finished spraying the far west easement where the sweet gum was most
prominent. The treatment was very thorough but not all of the trees may have
Additional Comments
been treated due to the high density of sweet gums.
Additional Comments
Chemical used was Garlon 4 (triclopyr)

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0235
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Pepperwood
Date 07-19-2016
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0164
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Pepperwood
Date 03-14-2016
Start Time
9:30 End Time
14:00
Start Time
10:00 End Time
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
Yes If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
Yes If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover
Clear Temp (F)
98
Sky Cover
Partly Cloudy Temp (F)
Wind Direction
WNW Wind Speed
Calm
Wind Direction
E Wind Speed
Applicators
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Applicators
William A Skinner (NC 026-32003NA 129456)
Kemper Sutton
Joel Wise
Application Method
Basal Bark
Application Method
Foliar Spray (ATV - Broadcast)
Herbicide
Other (see comments)
Herbicide
Oust® XP (sulfometuron methyl)
Herbicide Rate (%)
15 Total Concentrate
152 fl oz
Herbicide Rate (%)
Total Concentrate
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
(%)
M
Other
Blue Dye
Other
Grounded (deposition agent)
Other Rate/Amt
1 fl oz
Other Rate/Amt
8oz/ac
Diluent
Diesel fuel
Diluent
Water
Total Solution
8 gallons
Total Solution
87.5 gal
Species Controlled
Callery Pear
Species Controlled
fescue
Sweet Gum
Area Description
We treated most of the sweet gums in the far west easement. There was a very
Area Description
high density of sweet gums in this area.
Additional Comments
Oust® application rate was 3oz/ac
Additional Comments
Chemical used was Garlon 4 (triclopyr)
15:00
70
Calm
18oz