20150636 Ver 1_Adaptive Management Plan_V2_20200712

ID#* 20150636 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 07/13/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 7/12/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r Stream r Wetlands W Buffer V Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Michael Herrmann
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20150636
Existing IDr
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
mherrmann@watershedinvestment
snc.net
Version:
*2
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Neville Farms Buffer and Nutrient Offset
Mitigation Bank
Orange
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Remediation Plans
File Upload: 20200712Adaptive Management Plan_V2.pdf 7.85MB
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Michael Herrmann
Signature:*
/ '&'e-W"t' �''?'r,V

Adaptive Management Plan (end Submission - 7/12/2020)
Neville Farms Phases 1&2
DWR #2015-0636
Site Overview and History
This Adaptive Management Plan is provided to address concerns over planted stem success at the Neville Farms
Mitigation Bank Parcel (Site). Watershed Investments NC (WINC), the sponsor, originally planted the site in
November -December 2016. The site encompasses 6.15 acres of land along Neville Creek in Orange County
North Carolina and is broken into two tracts separated by Neville Creek (See Figure 1 for a map of the site).
Site activities consisted of approximately 5.04 acres of riparian restoration and approximately 0.94 acres of
riparian preservation. An additional 0.17 acres of Tract 1 is included in the project easement area but is outside
the rule -defined riparian buffer zone and, consequently, is not included for either riparian buffer mitigation or
nutrient offset credit generation.
Year 3 (2019) monitoring data was collected on October 11, 2019 by Axiom Environmental (See Attachmentl).
While average density of planted stems per acre were above success criteria of 260 planted stems, in their review
of the report, NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) staff raised concerns over limited plant growth at both
tracts of the Site (See NC DWR Email in Attachment 2) and prompted a visit to review the site.
Staff from Watershed Investments (Mike Herrmann), Axiom Environmental (Phillip Perkinson) accompanied
Katie Merritt (DWR) on a visit to the Site on June 111h, 2020 to review plant growth and discuss options for
corrective measures. In their visit, deer browsing, competition from existing fescue, and poor soils were all sited
as potential causes for limited tree growth in some areas of both tracts. The prevalence of these causes varied
between Tract 1 and Tract 2 but raised concerns over planting success at some areas within the Site. No signs of
easement encroachment were observed during the visit.
The following is a brief summary of observations made of the two tracts during the site visit.
Tract 1- Planted stem growth was observed to be meeting success criteria throughout the majority of
the mitigation area and numerous natural volunteer plants were observed. Limited plant growth was
observed, however, both within Plot 7 and its immediate surrounding area (See Figure 1). In the Plot 7
area dense fescue was established. Additionally, the plot's planted stem viability was the lowest of all the
plots (283 stems/acre). Based on field observation, the area of suppressed growth is estimated to be 0.30
acres.
Tract 2 — Both plant diversity and growth were limited in most of the easement area except for the area
within monitoring Plot #2. Potentially causes for these problems were suggested to be poor soil and
plant herbivory. The area affected is shown in Figure 1 and is approximately 1.20 acres.
In response to concerns found in the annual monitoring reports and observed during the visit, the following
adaptive measures are proposed to, increase planted tree density, provide plant diversity, and address
competition from herbaceous plants.

Adpative Management Plan
Herbaceous competition from fescue was observed to be a likely cause of stunted plant growth on Tract 1. On
this tract, herbicide will be used to control fescue. Chemicals labeled safe for use in riparian zones and in aquatic
environments will be mixed and applied at rates labeled for treatment of fescue. Precautions will be taken to
avoid collateral damage to desirable vegetation (both planted and volunteer). Pesticide application will be
conducted by a licensed application specialist and logs will be available upon request. Fescue application will be
scheduled soon after approval of this adaptive management plan.
Soil testing of Tract 2 is being undertaken to determine whether the site needs soil amendments prior to the
container planting. Soil amendment will occur as needed based on soil testing. Possible amendments to the soil
include the use of lime to lower acidity and/or fertilization to improve low soil nutrients (e.g., phosphorus, or
potassium) while being careful not to over fertilize. Fertility in Tract 1 was not observed to be a problem.
To increase planted stem density, planting one -gallon container plants will occur on both tracts 1 and 2. On
Tract 2,150 native hardwood species listed in Table 1 will be planted at a density of approximately 100 stems per
acre to fill in areas with low planted stem growth or stunted growth. This density, when combined with existing
successful plants, should solidify the likelihood that plantings at the site will meet success criteria defined in the
Mitigation Banking Instrument at the site close-out.
To assess planting needs, Tract 2 is separated into 2 sides based on topography and existing tree growth. Results
from soil tests and existing tree locations on each side will be used to determine where container plants are
needed to supplement sparse areas of existing tree growth. Soil amendments will be based on soil test findings.
For Tract 1, where the area is smaller, approximately 50 trees will be planted using a more uniform 16-foot
spacing. Of the Table 1 species, Acer rubrum (Red Maple) will not be planted on Tract 1 and only used on Tract
2. Planting of both tracts will occur in the Fall/Winter of 2020/2021 and observed over Year 5 of the
monitoring period.
Due to their more developed root system, the
container plants will be better enabled to
overcome herbivory that is suspected to be
affecting the site. In addition, to discourage
herbivory, a deer repellent will be applied at
least once to the plants on Tract 2 in the spring
of 2021 when trees are in the early budding
stage. A non -toxic repellent safe for wildlife will
be used.
Table 1. Proposed one -gallon tree species (Note:
Species availability may result in the substitution of
regionally appropriate native species.)
Species
Common Name
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Diospyms virginiana
Persimmon
Acer rubruru
Red Maple (Only on
Tract 2)
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Celas ocadentalis
Hackberry
Quercus falcata
Southern red oak

Attachment 1. Year 3 Neville Monitoring Report
YEAR 3 (2019) MONITORING REPORT
Neville Farms Buffer and Nutrient Offset Bank Parcel
(Phase 1 & Phase 2)
Jordan Lake Nutrient Strategy - Upper New Hope Subwatershed
Orange County, NC
DWR# 2015-0636
October, 2019
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: [phone]
Prepared for:
Watershed Investments NC, LLC
1630 Weatherford Circle
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
WATERSHED
Investments

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Watershed Investments NC (Sponsor) is pleased to provide the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) this
Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report for the Neville Farms Bank Parcel (Site). The purpose of this
project is to generate Jordan Lake riparian buffer restoration and preservation mitigation credits as well as
nutrient offset credits. The Neville Farms Bank Parcel is included in the Neville Farms Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) for Riparian Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Credits signed between Watershed
Investments NC, LLC and the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) and effective on January 291h, 2016.
The MBI is in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (Temporary Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule,
effective October 24, 2014) and 15A NCAC 02B .0240 (Nutrient Offset Payments Rule).
The Site is located approximately 3 miles southwest of Chapel Hill, NC and one mile upstream of University
Lake. Surface water drainage features at the Site feed into the Upper New Hope subwatershed of Jordan
Lake. The Site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin 14-digit United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Cataloging Unit 03030002060070 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division of Water
Quality [NCDWQ] Sub -basin Number 03-06-06).
Project restoration activities and planting were completed in November -December 2016. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and project attributes are summarized in
Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
The site encompasses 6.15 acres of land along Neville Creek, which is a tributary to University Lake south of
Chapel Hill in Orange County North Carolina. Site activities consisted of approximately 5.04 acres of
riparian restoration and approximately 0.94 acres of riparian preservation. An additional 0.17 acres of Tract 1
is included in the project easement area but is outside the rule -defined riparian buffer zone and, consequently,
not included for either riparian buffer mitigation or nutrient offset credit generation.
The Site is comprised of two separate tracts owned by two different land owners and is being mitigated in
two phases. Phase 1 is comprised of Tract I and Phase 2 is comprised of Tract 2. Each phase/tract has its
own credit release schedule for milestones met in accordance with the Neville Farms Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI). Though the tracts are adjacent, the division of the Site was necessary based on land use,
land planning, and project crediting. Moving forward; however, project activities for both Tracts are
proceeding on the same schedule. Tract information is as follows.
Tract
Acreage
Location
Tract 1 (Gambill/Neville Property)
4.31 ac.
Main project area located on the north side of Neville
Creek and accessible from Old Greensboro Highway
Tract 2 (McGee Property)
1.84 ac.
Area south of Neville Creek and accessible from
Stansbury Road
Orange County is the delegated authority by the NC Environmental Management Commission to conduct
determinations on whether drainage features in their jurisdiction are surface waters and subject to the buffer
rules of the State found in 15A NCAC 02B .0267 (Protection of Existing Riparian Buffers). Orange County
i
Neville Farms Year 2 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

Planning and Inspections assessed the Site and provided their determination on February 9th, 2015 that the
surface water features on the Site are subject to the Rule (Appendix C).
The project has restored and preserved forest adjacent to surface water features to reduce nutrients that flow
into Neville Creek, University Lake, and ultimately Jordan Lake. The project will have ancillary benefits that
include reducing sediment runoff, reducing nutrients to streams through agricultural runoff, and thus,
improving aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Any nutrient offset or riparian buffer mitigation generated from this
Bank Parcel may offset impacts from development, both existing and proposed, within the Upper New Hope
Subwatershed of Jordan Lake, as verified by DWR staff onsite and in a letter dated April 6, 2015 (Appendix
E).
At the request of NC DWR, one (1) additional permanent vegetation plot was installed in the Zone C
Restoration area of Tract 1 during year 1 annual monitoring for a total of five (5) permanent vegetation plots
in Tract 1 and two (2) permanent vegetation plots in Tract 2. During Year 1 (2017), mowing occurred to
reduce herbaceous competition of planted trees. Year 3 (2019) data was collected on October 11, 2019 by
Axiom Environmental and derived an average density of 451 planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes). In
addition, all seven vegetation plots were well above success criteria of 260 planted stems per acre. No
problem areas were observed in Year 3 (2019).
ii
Neville Farms Year 2 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.......................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Monitoring Plan..................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Success Criteria.................................................................................................................................................1
2.0 MITIGATION POTENTIAL.................................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ..........................
4.0 REFERENCES .........................
2
........................... 3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GENERAL FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Figure 3. Component and Asset Map
Table 1A. Phase 1/Tract 1 Neville Farms Buffer Credit Generation Summary
Table 1B. Phase 1/Tract 1 Neville Farms Nutrient Offset Credit Generation Summary
Table 1 C. Phase 2/Tract 2 Neville Farms Buffer Credit Generation Summary
Table 1D. Phase 2/Tract 2 Neville Farms Nutrient Offset Credit Generation Summary
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VEGETATION DATA
Table 5. Planting List
Table 6. Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
Table 7. Planted and Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 8. CVS Data Summary Table
Permanent Photo Points
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

1.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1.1 Project Monitoring Plan
Riparian vegetation monitoring for Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be based on the CVS Level 1-2 Pmtocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Annual vegetation monitoring will occur each year during the
fall season with the first year for each Phase occurring at least 5 months after initial planting of the Tract/s.
Vegetation monitoring plots measure 0.0247 acre in size and cover 2% of the planted area. Accordingly, four
(4) permanent vegetative plots will be used to monitor Tract 1 and two (2) permanent vegetative plots will be
used to monitor Tract 2. At the request of NC DWR, one (1) additional permanent vegetation plot was
installed in the Zone C Restoration area of Tract 1 during year 1 annual monitoring for a total of five (5)
permanent vegetation plots in Tract 1 and two (2) permanent vegetation plots in Tract 2 (Figure 2, Appendix
A).
A reference photo will be taken from the southwestern corner of each plot. All planted stems in the plots
will be marked with flagging tape and recorded. Data collected will include species, height, planting type
(planted stem or volunteer), and grid location. Year 3 (2019) CVS data was collected on October 11, 2019 by
Axiom Environmental and derived an average density of 450 planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes)
(Table 7, Appendix B). Planted stems throughout the site were generally vigorous with an average planted
stem height of 2.65 feet (81.5cm).
The Sponsor shall submit to DWR an annual monitoring report for each phase, no later than December 31
of each year for five consecutive years. Reports will document the success of the vegetation and any
maintenance, supplemental planting, or encroachment within the easement areas. As planting and the
monitoring for both Phase 1 and 2 occurred on the same schedule, WINC intends to submit one Monitoring
Report each year for at least 5 years to document the above requirements for both phases. All Monitoring
Reports shall reflect the Phase for which it is being submitted. Monitoring bonds shall be renewed with
confirmation of renewal provided to DWR with each annual monitoring report for each phase. DWR
reserves the right to alter the credit release schedule if monitoring reports are submitted without proof of
bond renewals.
Invasive and noxious species will be monitored annually and controlled as needed so that none become
dominant or alter the desired community structure of the site.
Year 2 maintenance and mitigation activities occurring at the Site included herbicide treatment on local areas
of Japanese Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) and Autumn Olive (Eleagnus umbellata) at Tract 2. These
treatments were conducted on May 25, 2018 with a follow up on August 31, 2018. An aquatic -safe
glyphosate (AquaNeat) herbicide was applied by a licensed Pesticide Applicator to control the invasive
vegetation. Additionally, the conservation easement associated with the project was transferred to Unique
Places to Save on July 26, 2018. This transfer fulfilled the property disposition and long-term management
requirements of the Neville Farms MBI.
Easement boundaries were checked at the time of CVS data collection, there were no signs of encroachment.
1.2 Success Criteria
Pursuant to criteria found in the Temporary Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 and
Neville Farms MBI, vegetative success for the Site will require the survival of at least 260 planted trees per
1
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

acre at the end of Year 5 based on monitoring data compiled for the site and site visits by the DWR. Natural
recruits will not count towards annual achievement of performance standards; however, they may be taken
into account during review by the NC DWR. Recruitment of volunteer species in the floodplain is
anticipated due to adjacent forests that exist upstream and on the stream bank.
2.0 MITIGATION POTENTIAL
As noted in the Neville Farms MBI, buffer credit determination is subject to the Temporary Buffer Rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295(h) and (i). Figure 3 (Appendix A) identifies the riparian areas and credit types for Phase 1
and Phase 2.
In accordance with Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, the width of the buffer/nutrient credit generation area
begins at the most landward limit of the top of bank or the rooted herbaceous vegetation and extends
landward to a maximum distance of 200 feet. Nutrient offsets are not being generated within the areas
described as Preservation. Preservation areas meet the requirements described in .0295 (m) (2) (D) —
Preservation of Buffers on Subject Streams. Restoration areas meet the requirements of .0295(i) — Riparian
Restoration or Enhancement. Nutrient Offset credits are consistent with rules 15A NCAC 02B .024.
The following is a summary of the Jordan Lake riparian buffer credits and nutrient offset credit calculations
for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Site. Detailed credit calculations are included in Tables 1A-1D (Appendix A).
Phase 1 (Tract 1�
• 0.40 acres Riparian Buffer Preservation = 1742.4 square feet of credit
• 3.74 acres Nutrient Offset = 7220.59 lbs-N delivered and 424.90 lbs-P delivered)
Phase 2 (Tract 2)
• 1.30 acres Riparian Buffer Restoration = 55,321.2 square feet (ft2) of credit
• 0.54 acres Riparian Buffer Preservation = 2330.50 square feet (ft2) of credit
As indicated in the Site's MBI, credits generated from riparian buffer restoration activities can be converted
and transferred from buffer credits to nutrient offset credits with Division approval and from nutrient offset
credits to buffer credits. However, when converting from nutrient offsets to buffer, all applicable ratios and
percentages of full credit will apply according to 15A NCAC 02B .0295.
Neville Farms' Nutrient Offset and Riparian Buffer credits will not be debited within the same area (not
stacked). The Neville Farms Bank will service impacts within the Upper New Hope Subwatershed of Jordan
Lake.
3.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the event that the Site, or a specific component of the Site, fails to achieve the defined performance
standards, WINC will develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or implement appropriate remedial
actions for the Site in coordination with DWR. Remedial actions will be designed to achieve the performance
standards specified previously, and will include identification of the causes of failure, remedial design
approach, work schedule, and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and climatic conditions.
2
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

4.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., RK. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Version 4.2. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Shafale, M. P., and Weakley, A.S. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program.
Raleigh, NC.
3
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

APPENDIXA
GENERAL FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Figure 3. Component and Asset Map
Table 1A. Phase 1/Tract 1 Neville Farms Buffer Credit Generation Summary
Table 1B. Phase 1/Tract 1 Neville Farms Nutrient Offset Credit Generation Summary
Table 1 C. Phase 2/Tract 2 Neville Farms Buffer Credit Generation Summary
Table 1D. Phase 2/Tract 2 Neville Farms Nutrient Offset Credit Generation Summary
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendices
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

E
T
z � r/
0; OVA
fro PIP
SRI
"On"W-ma
MWMA
NN
-.. -. .
WATERSHED
Project:
NEVILLE CREEK
RIPARIAN BUFFER
.- MITIGATION SITE
ct.41
S
j ~.19Lill
, 4 .,` " A'. i- T,, ,� ' ry-iy I. �. _ • / r ��/ r l/ !._. ; r4 . ,.y _ �egr
P
C •
baroRoad --
`� ,T )1d.fr-
OZ Ann
,<r
01
TJ
16
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Ma White Cross and Chapel Hill NC Quads
601
' f t ti f Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
h•_ .' a. Take 1-40 West out of Raleigh and travel 15.8 miles,
Take exit 273A to merge onto NC-54 W,
- After 2.9 miles,merge right to stay on NC-54 W (US-15 S, US-501 S),
`� JJ - After 1.9 miles, take the Jones Ferry Road exit and turn left onto Jones Ferry Road,
- In 2.8 miles, turn right onto Bowden Road, then right on Stansbury Road,
4 - Site is located on the left side of Stansbury Road after 0.2 miles.
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Site Latitude, Longitude 35.892540,-79.127242 (NAD83/WGS84)
Society, i-cubed
Orange County, NC
Title:
SITE LOCATION
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
JAN 2017
Scale:
1:20000
Project No.:
16-027
FIGURE
1

Legend
LConservation Easement Boundary
Stream Top of Bank Tf,
CVS Plots
Photo Points L
r
47
,* --V,
' .� .� a�:' < ,� �.�r �: �"� � }} ,p {{r �: } � - 'ice •T�. a i i�a}(1
�� 'r - ,l�. J .{ 1. ,�1: � -. i � :fir` � - •s/.
;4` y
Ti 1 ♦ -
Amon Ems, Inc.
Prepared for:
N 6 _ Project:
20m x 5m Neville Creek
Buffer Restoration
1 Project
�•��IF Orange County, NC
1 Title:
J
4 , � r `• ' ,,r `� ;', x l' Current Conditions
Plan View
2
t11'Omx 10m
6
10m x 10m 3 %' r ,
.'. Drawn by:
KRJ/CLF
3 ,
5 10m x 10m iP , Date:
' OCT 2017
:R = Scale:
10m x 10m i ! t
Project No.:
16-027
4 - l
10m x 10m
FIGURE
Plot 7 was installed and measured during year
monitoring. No baseline data for this plot was collected. r ` . (, F , .
0 125 250 500 .h
Ixh
Feet!..
N One11 p, NC nter f r Ge ph Info m t o n I i Bo rd

Table U. Phase 1/Tract 1 Neville Farms Buffer Credit Generation Summary
Buffer
Zone
Mitigation Type
Ratio
Phase 1
Area ac
Credit Per
Acre
Total Buffer
Credit
Zone A
Buffer
10:1
0.40
4356
1742.4
(0-50 ft)
Preservation
Total Riparian Buffer Credit
0.40
n/a
1742.4
Table 1B. Phase 1/Tract 1 Neville Farms Nutrient Offset Credit Generation Summary
Generated Nutrient
Generated Offset
Delivery Factor
Delivered Offset
Phase 1
Offset Credit Yield
Buffer
Mitigation Type
area
(lb/30yr/ac)
Credit
for Offsets
Credit
Zone
N
N lbs
P lbs
(ac)
P lbs/ac
N lbs
P lbs
%N
%P
lbs/ac
Zone A
Buffer Restoration
0.94
2039.10
135.18
1814.80
106.79
0-50 ft
Zone B
Buffer Restoration
1.27
2754.96
182.64
2451.91
144.29
51-100 ft
2169.26
143.81
89
79
Z
Zone C
Zone
Buffer Restoration
1.53
3318.97
220.03
2953.88
173.82
00 ft)
Total Nutrient Offset Credit
3.74
F81F7
�537-857
7220.59
424.90
Appendices
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

Table 1C. Phase 2/Tract 2 Neville Farms Buffer Credit Generation Summary
Buffer Zone
Mitigation Type
Ratio
Phase 2
Area ac
Credit Per
Acre
Total Buffer
Credit
Zone A 0-50 ft
Buffer Restoration
1:1
0.71
43,560
30,927.6
Zone B 51-100 ft
Buffer Restoration
1:1
0.53
43,560
23,086.8
Zone C (101-200)
Buffer Restoration
1 1:1 & 50%
0.06
21,780
1306.8
Total Riparian Buffer Restoration Credit
1.30
n/a
55,321.20
Zone A 0-50 ft
Buffer Preservation
10:1
0.46
4356
2003.8
Zone B 51-100 ft
Buffer Preservation
10:1
0.07
4356
304.9
Zone C (101-200)
Buffer Preservation
10:1 & 50%
0.01
2178
21.8
Total Riparian Buffer Preservation Credit
0.54
n/a
2330.50
Total Riparian Buffer Credit
1.84
n/a
57,651.70
Table 1D. Phase 2/Tract 2 Neville Farms Nutrient Offset Credit Generation SummarT
Generated
Nutrient Offset
* Generated Offset
Delivery Factor
* Delivered Offset
Buffer
Mitigation Type
Phase 2
Credit Yield
Credit
for Offsets
Credit
Zone
area (ac)
(lb/30yr/ac)
N
P
N lbs
P lbs
%N
%P
N lbs
P lbs
Zone A
Buffer
0.71
578.05
129.77
514.46
102.52
0-50 ft
Restoration
Zone B
Buffer
0.53
431.50
96.87
384.03
76.53
51-100 ft
Restoration
814.15
182.77
89
79
Zone C
Buffer
0.06
48.85
10.96
43.48
8.66
(101-200)
Restoration
Total Nutrient Offset Credit
1.30
1058.40
237.60
F 941.97
187.71
*Note: In the BPDP, WINC requested buffer mitigation from Phase 2 and is providing this information for supporting documentation in
case a request is made to transfer credit from buffer to nutrient offset. Any transfer of credit from buffer to nutrient must be reviewed and
approved by the Division prior to transfer. In addition, credit calculations changed since submittal of the BPDP; documentation and
approval from planning for credit calculations are included in Appendix G.
Appendices
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Completion or Delivery
Neville Farms Bank Parcel Mitigation Banking Instrument Signed
-
January 29, 2016
Orange County Planning & Inspection Determination
-
February 9, 2015
DWR Staff Site Visit for Project Viability & Service Area Approval
-
April 6, 2015
Revised BPDP Submitted
-
June 1, 2016
Revised BPDP Approved
-
June 9, 2016
Site Preparation & Invasive Controls
-
November 16-18, 2016
Site Planting
-
December 21-22, 2016
Restoration work verification site visit with DWR Staff
-
January 31, 2017
Draft As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Document
January 5, 2017
March 20, 2017
Year 1 (2017) Annual Monitoring Report
October 11, 2017
October 30, 2017
Year 2 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report
October 09, 2018
October 30, 2018
Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report
October 11, 2019
October 30, 2019
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Site Prep and Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems
PO Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
[e-mail]
919-242-6555
Surveying
K2 Design Group
5688 US Hwy 70 East
Goldsboro, NC 27534
[e-mail]
919-751-0075
Conservation Easement Preparation
Banking Documents and Reports Preparation
Harriss & Marion, PLLC
Watershed Investments NC
3326 Durham -Chapel Hill Blvd
1630 Weatherford Circle
P.O Box 51009
Raleigh, NC 27604
Durham, NC 27717
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
919-559-6264
919-493-8421
Nursery/Seedling Supplier
Monitoring Services
Dykes and Son Nursery
Axiom Environmental Inc
825 Maude Etter Road
218 Snow Avenue
McMinnville, TN 37110
Raleigh, NC 27603
931-668-8833
919-215-1693
[e-mail]
Appendices
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

Table 4. Project Baseline Information & Attributes Table
Project Information
Project Name
Neville Farms
County
Orange
Project Area (acres)
Tract 1 = 4.31 acres, Tract 2 = 1.84 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and
longitude)
Tract 1 - Latitude: 35.8917' , Longitude:-79.1281'
Tract 1 - Latitude: 35.8926' , Longitude:-79.1262'
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-
git
03030002060070
DWQ Sub -basin
03-06-06
Jordan Lake Subwatershed
Upper New Hope
Appendices
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

APPENDIX B
VEGETATION DATA
Table 5. Planting List
Table 6. Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
Table 7. Planted and Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 8. CVS Data Summary
Permanent Photo Points
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendices
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

Table 5. Planting List
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Acreage Planted
5.04 acres
Species
Total Stems
Planted
River Birch (Betula nigra)
535
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennglvanica)
240
Tulip poplar (Liiiodendron tulipifera)
535
American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
535
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus ruichauxiz)
535
Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
535
TOTAL
2915
Table 6. 2019 Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
Plot #
Riparian Buffer Stems'
(per acre)
Success Criteria Met?
1
850
Yes
2
405
Yes
3
364
Yes
4
486
Yes
405
Yes
6
364
Yes
283
Yes
Project Avg
451
Yes
1 Buffer Stems=Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
Appendices
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

Table 7 Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 16.027. Project Name: Neville Creek Buffer
Current Plot Data (MY3 2019)
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
16.027-01-0001
16.027-01-0002
16.027-01-0003
16.027-01-0004
16.027-01-0005
16.027-01-0006
16.027-01-0007
MY3 (2019)
MY2 (2018)
MY1 (2017)
MYO (2017)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Pnol-
P-all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
11
1
11
7
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1 4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
3
1
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
17
1
1
15
2
2
15
1
1
6
4
13
13
63
14
14
60
14
14
14
14
14
14
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
3
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
1
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
6
2
2
16
4
4
8
1
1
1
15
15
37
14
14
23
18
18
18
17
17
17
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
17
17
17
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
9
9
9
13
13
13
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
10
10
10
12
12
12
13
13
13
7
7
7
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
Quercus rubra
Inorthern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
2
2
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
Tree
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
211
211
24
10
10
10
9
91
29
12
12
40
10
10
38
9
9
14
71
7
11
78
78
166
83
831
154
93
93
94
90
90
90
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
6
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.15
7
7
8
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
5
5
6
6
6
6
3
3
4
9
9
12
9
9
13
9
9
10
8
8
8
850
850
971
405
405
405
364
364
1174
486
486
1619
405
405
1538
364
364
567
283
283
445
451
451
960
4801
4801
890
5381
5381
543
6071
6071
607
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%

Plot
SCIENTIFIC NAME
X
Y
Height (CM)
DBH
Vigor
1
Quercus pagoda
0.9
0.2
54
3
1
Platanus occidentalis
0.8
3.0
120
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
0.7
4.3
20
3
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
3.5
3.8
50
3
1
Platanus occidentalis
3.4
2.2
128
4
1
Betula nigra
5.7
0.0
53
3
1
Betula nigra
5.6
3.5
52
4
1
Betula nigra
5.0
5.0
51
3
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7.2
3.4
40
3
1
Platanus occidentalis
8.2
1.3
193
0.7
4
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10.9
0.8
60
3
1
Betula nigra
10.9
2.1
40
3
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10.6
3.7
60
3
1
Liriodendrontulipifera
10.0
5.0
60
3
1
Platanus occidentalis
12.7
3.6
151
0.3
4
1
Quercus michauxii
12.8
2.1
25
3
1
Quercus pagoda
13.0
0.9
30
2
1
Quercus shumardii
15.8
3.9
36
3
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
15.7
5.0
40
Missing
1
Quercus pagoda
17.8
3.6
40
3
1
Platanus occidentalis
17.8
0.7
100
4
1
Platanus occidentalis
17.8
1.7
108
4
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
0.7
1.2
56
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
4.0
1.4
80
3
2
Platanus occidentalis
7.7
3.3
198
0.4
4
2
Platanus occidentalis
8.8
0.4
180
0.5
4
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10.0
3.9
115
3
2
Quercus michauxii
6.4
5.5
85
3
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.8
6.6
100
3
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7.8
9.3
127
4
2
Quercus michauxii
5.2
8.3
48
3
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
1.6
6.6
50
3
3
Betula nigra
2.2
2.2
102
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.2
3.2
131
4
3
Quercus
6.5
1.1
Missing
3
Quercus pagoda
9.4
1.3
50
4
3
Betula nigra
7.7
4.2
70
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.9
7.2
40
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.2
9.4
100
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.5
8.1
90
4
3
Betula nigra
4.1
6.3
87
4
3
Quercus michauxii
0.9
5.9
Missing
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
1.2
0.1
63
3

Plot
SCIENTIFIC NAME
X
Y
Height (CM)
DBH
Vigor
4
Quercus michauxii
0.5
0.2
40
3
4
Quercus rubra
1.5
2.5
46
3
4
Quercus rubra
4.6
2.3
40
3
4
Quercus rubra
2.9
4.7
Missing
4
Quercus
7.1
1.0
40
4
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
9.0
3.5
40
4
4
Betula nigra
9.2
0.2
55
3
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.4
4.9
70
4
4
Betula nigra
8.9
6.9
45
4
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.2
7.6
45
2
4
Betula nigra
9.9
9.1
45
3
4
Quercus
1.1
9.6
42
3
4
Quercus rubra
7.1
9.9
47
3
5
Platanus occidentalis
2.9
2.5
271
1.5
4
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
5.5
0.7
62
3
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.1
3.4
52
4
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.6
0.3
80
3
5
Platanus occidentalis
8.7
3.0
300
1.5
4
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.2
6.2
61
4
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.8
5.9
89
3
5
Quercus
9.1
9.3
Missing
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.1
8.8
70
4
5
Betula nigra
3.1
3.9
55
3
5
Quercus michauxii
0.2
8.8
35
4
6
Platanus occidentalis
3.6
3.3
251
1.5
4
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.5
1.1
201
1.1
4
6
Platanus occidentalis
7.2
3.6
230
1
4
6
Platanus occidentalis
9.1
0.7
Missing
6
Platanus occidentalis
5.2
5.1
261
1.5
4
6
Quercus pagoda
7.7
7.1
30
4
6
Quercus michauxii
6.0
9.8
21
4
6
Platanus occidentalis
3.9
7.1
183
0.8
4
6
Quercus
2.6
8.2
Missing
6
Betula nigra
1.1
5.5
68
4
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
9.4
1.0
67
4
7
Quercus michauxii
0.8
0.0
Missing
7
Quercus michauxii
2.6
1.6
0
7
Quercus michauxii
4.2
3.2
25
3
7
Quercus michauxii
0.4
3.4
33
3
7
Betula nigra
7.2
7.4
Missing
7
Betula nigra
9.5
2.7
50
3
7
Quercus rubra
8.9
6.4
10
3
7
Quercus michauxii
6.9
8.7
20
2
7
Quercus michauxii
1.9
8.5
40
2
F7
Betula nigra
7.4
1.1
40
3

Neville Farms
Permanent Photo Points
Taken October 11, 2019
t.
f
4�
Appendices
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

Neville Farms
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 11, 2019
Appendices
Neville Farms Year 3 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report (Phases 1 &2) Watershed Investments NC

Attachment 2. NC DWR Comments on Year 3 Neville Monitoring Report
[e-mail]
From: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 11:09 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Watershed Investments I Continuation Certificate [-Restricted-]
Hey Mike,
I just finished the monitoring report on Friday, and I do have some concerns regarding the health of the trees recorded
in the monitoring report, despite the vigor rating. This is Year 3, and upon my review of the report, >25% of the stems
are smaller this year when comparing the data from 2018. There is nothing in the report that indicates a problem was
observed, but I presume there is an explanation? Some stems were >15cm less than last year. Also observed, is that
>70% of the stems recorded are <3 feet tall for this Year. Of the stems that are actually greater than 3', they are only
Sycamore, Green Ash and 1 Oak. The pictures provided in the report show lots of weeds and very few trees, and the
easement boundary doesn't look well marked in PP 1 and PP2.
As a result, I am very concerned that this site is not on trajectory to meeting performance by year 5 considering the
height of the trees is alarmingly small. By Year 3, a majority of your planted stems should be well over 3', and in
comparison to most bank site's Year 3 monitoring data, yours is underperforming. Upon allowing a bond reduction,
DWR will need to see the site in late Spring 2020 to determine how representative the plot data is of the entire site as a
whole. It will be at this site visit, that DWR will assess the vegetation condition and determine if a remediation plan will
be required.
Therefore, DWR will not be authorizing a bond reduction at this time. You will need to secure a continuation certificate
for the bond amount currently in place at $44,000. Additionally, only a 5% credit release will be issued upon securing
the continuation certificate. When I have visited the site in Spring 2020, 1 will determine if the remaining 5% credit
release is warranted at that time.
Thank you,
Katie
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 12:15 PM
To: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: Watershed Investments I Continuation Certificate [-Restricted-]
W&• • External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hi Katie — Attached is a scanned copy of the bonding document for Neville Farms. Combined with the previously
provided monitoring report, will this suffice for the Task 6 credit release for the Neville site?
-Mike