20170110 Ver 2_Year 4 Monitoring Report DRAFT_2021_20211116

ID#* 20170110
Select Reviewer:
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 11/19/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 11/16/2021
Version* 2
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Raymond Holz
Project Information
ID#:* 20170110
Existing ID#
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Weaver Farm
County: Wayne
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 2
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: 2017-0110v2 Draft Weaver Yr. 4 2021 Monitoring
28.46MB
Report.pdf
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Raymond Holz
Signature: *

YEAR 4 (2021) MONITORING REPORT
Weaver Farm Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
DWR Project #: 2017-0110v2
Neuse River Basin
In Agreement with:
The Weaver Farm Mitigation Banking Instrument for
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Credits Pursuant to the
Neuse Nutrient Management Strategy
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
PREPARED BY:
November 2021
i'
axiom rnvirwmertai, inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems (Sponsor) is pleased to provide the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC
DWR) this Annual Monitoring Report for the Weaver Farm Bank Parcel (Parcel). Restoration Systems (RS)
is pleased to provide the NC DWR this Annual Monitoring Report for the Weaver Farm Bank Parcel (Parcel).
As agreed in the Weaver Farm Mitigation Banking Instrument, made and entered into on July 7, 2017, by
RS acting as Bank Sponsor, and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ),
Division of Water Resources (DWR).
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria within the buffer and nutrient offset
restoration areas will be based on the survival of planted species at a density of 260 stems per acre after
five years of monitoring.
During year 4 (2021), vegetation was monitored on September 23, 2021. Year 4 (2021) stems densities
averaged 447 planted hardwood stems per acre (excluding livestakes), with eighteen of the twenty-two
plots meeting success criteria (Table 6, Appendix C). Additionally, all three temporary transects met
success criteria, with an average of 607 stems per acre (Table 7, Appendix C).
No signs of herbivory, easement encroachment, mowing, pruning, or mulching were observed.
Additionally, minimal invasive species were observed on the Parcel.
2021 Maintenance Summary:
Given the apparent success of RS' 2020 remedial action plan and replanting, no additional remedial
work was performed during Year 4 (2021).
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
None None
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Report Executive Summary
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES.........................................................................1
1.1. Location and Setting...............................................................................................................1
1.2. Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................1
2.0
MITIGATION POTENTIAL...................................................................................................................2
3.0
MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA.............................................................................................2
3.1. Monitoring Protocol...............................................................................................................2
3.2. Success Criteria......................................................................................................................3
4.0
MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY.................................................................................................3
5.0
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Site Location Map and Background Tables
Figure 1. Site Location and Service Area
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information & Attributes
Table 5. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Figure 3. Component and Asset
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Planted and Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 7. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8. Planted Vegetation Totals
Year 4 (2021) Planted Stem Height Data
Appendix D. Remedial Activities
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Report
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS
Executive Summary
Restoration Systems, LLC

1.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES
Restoration Systems (Sponsor) is pleased to provide the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC
DWR) this Annual Monitoring Report for the Weaver Farm Bank Parcel (Parcel). As agreed, in the Weaver
Farm Mitigation Banking Instrument, made and entered into on July 7, 2017, by Restoration Systems, LLC,
(RS) acting as Bank Sponsor (Sponsor), and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ), Division of Water Resources (DWR).
1.1. Location and Setting
The Parcel is located approximately 2.1 miles northeast of Grantham in Wayne County, NC. (Figure 1,
Appendix A). The Parcel is within the Neuse River Basin in the 14-digit United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Cataloging Unit 03020201170010 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division of
Water Quality [NCDWQ] Sub -basin Number 03-04-12) (Figure 1, Appendix A).
Latitude: 35°18'16.01"N, Longitude: 78' 7'44.27"W
Directions to Parcel:
- Take 1-40 East out of Raleigh,
- Take Exit 341 for NC-50/NC-55 toward US-13/Newton Grove,
- At the traffic circle (1.3 miles), take the 4th exit onto US-13 N,
- 9.4 Miles Turn Left onto Weaver Rd.,
- 0.7 Miles Turn Right at Angie Drive,
- The Parcel is located on the left.
1.2. Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals associated with the restoration of riparian areas are improving water quality, enhancing
flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife habitat by creating a forested riparian buffer adjacent to stream
channels and a forested riparian area along agricultural ditches. These goals will be accomplished by the
following.
1. Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production, including a)
ceasing the broadcast application of fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and
adjacent to Site surface water conveyances, and b) providing a restored buffer to filter runoff from
adjacent lands.
2. Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters by reducing bank erosion,
vegetation maintenance, and agricultural land disturbances.
3. Promoting floodwater attenuation by increasing frictional resistance of floodwaters crossing Site
floodplains.
4. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed shading and natural detritus input.
5. Providing a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area extensively developed for agricultural
production.
6. Restoring and re-establishing natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional
continuity.
7. Protecting the Parcel's riparian buffer functions and values in perpetuity
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Page 1
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

2.0 MITIGATION POTENTIAL
The removal of livestock had immediate benefits to the Parcel's drainage features 1-3. Flushing flows
established a new top of bank within these features. Planting of the new "benches" occurred during
reforestation efforts. The revised top of bank was measured during as -built survey work and used to
generate as -built credit calculations. Additionally, the final easement boundary was slightly adjusted along
the southern boundary of Feature's 1 and 2's origin; approximately 20 feet was added to the easement in
the section above the proposed boundary detailed in the Bank Parcel Development Package (BPDP). These
two factors resulted in a slightly higher mitigation potential than initially documented in the BPDP.
The DWR has determined the nitrogen nutrient abatement of the restored riparian area to be 2,273.02 lbs.
per acre. Riparian buffer credits will be measured by the hundredth of an acre and converted into square
feet.
Per the as -built survey, the conservation easement measures 22.81 acres and includes 21.53 acres of
restored riparian area. Of the restored riparian area, 15.37 acres will generate nutrient offset credit,
generating 34,936.31 lbs. of nitrogen offset credit. 6.16 acres of the restored riparian area will generate
268,329.6 sq. ft. of Neuse River riparian buffer credits. Riparian buffer mitigation generated via restoration
can be used for either Neuse River riparian buffer credits or nutrient offset credits, but not both. IRS must
request and receive approval from DWR to transfer any mitigation credits between riparian buffer and
nutrient offset. All mitigation credit assets shall be shown on the credit ledgers. The Parcel's mitigation
potential is detailed in Table 1 (Appendix A).
3.0 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
3.1. Monitoring Protocol
Restoration monitoring procedures for riparian vegetation will include periodic visual inspection and
annual plant survival and species diversity survey reports. Quantitative sampling of vegetation will be
performed as outlined in the CVS Level 1-2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008).
Photos will be taken from all photo points each monitoring year and provided in the annual reports. All
planted stems in the plots will be marked with flagging tape and recorded. Detailed qualitative and
quantitative monitoring is proposed for vegetated riparian areas and is to be reported annually.
Monitoring of the restoration efforts will be performed for five years or until success criteria are fulfilled.
Restoration Systems shall submit an annual monitoring report to DWR no later than December 31 of each
year. Quantitative monitoring includes 22 10x10 meter permanent vegetation plots (2.0% of riparian buffer
mitigation and nutrient offset credit areas). Plots were randomly placed throughout the planted riparian
areas and are representative of credit generating areas. Vegetation sampling will be performed in the Fall
of each year; monitoring data can be found in Appendix C.
Vegetation will periodically receive a cursory, visual evaluation to ascertain the degree of overtopping of
planted elements by nuisance species. A visual assessment of the cattle exclusion fencing will also be
performed each year to confirm:
• Fencing is in good condition throughout the Site,
• No cattle access within the conservation easement area,
• No encroachment has occurred,
• Diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement area, and
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Page 2
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

There has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would negatively
affect the function of the buffer.
3.2. Success Criteria
Success criteria within the riparian buffer and nutrient offset restoration areas will be based on the survival
of planted species at a density of 260 stems per acre after five years of monitoring. A minimum of four
native hardwood tree and shrub species must be present, with no one species representing greater than
50% of the stems. In addition, appropriate volunteer stems of native hardwood tree and shrub species may
be included to meet the final performance standard of 260 stems per acre upon DWR approval.
4.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY
2018 Maintenance Summarv:
No active maintenance occurred on the Parcel between the initial planting and Yr. 1 (2018) monitoring.
In September of 2018, approximately 20-25 inches of rain fell over a three -to -four day period from
Hurricane Florence, resulting in complete inundation of the Parcel for nearly a week. Based on site -
specific indicators (high-water marks and debris racks in trees), as much as 6-feet of water covered the
project. Hurricane Florence's impact was assumed to be the main contributor to the poor survival of
planted hardwood stems during Year 1 (2018) monitoring efforts — completed in October of 2018. A
remedial action plan was developed as part of the Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report and approved by
DWR staff via email (Appendix D). IRS implemented the remedial action plan in 2019.
2019 Maintenance Summary;
On February 24, 2019, IRS completed a remedial planting effort (Appendix D), which included:
• The planting of 8,500 bare -root stems within two different planting zones,
• The broadcast application of permanent herbaceous seed mix (red top grass mix) for better weed
control,
Herbicide treatment for control of dense prickly sida (Sida rhombifolia) and dogfennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium) and,
In the location of the former poultry houses, IRS disc the Parcel to incorporate lime and to break
up soil compaction from the removed buildings.
DWR and IRS staff conducted a field verification of the replanting effort in April of 2019. IRS, along with
DWR staff, were unable to locate an abundance of living, planted stems. The survey triggered IRS to
begin a robust evaluation of the Parcel to determine how planted stems from the initial planting (Dec.
2017) and the remedial planting (Feb. 2019) were faring; further surveys indicated planted stems were
struggling to establish and visual mortality of planted stems was near 80%.
To further investigate the mortality issues, IRS conducted multiple soil tests with the Parcel. The results
of these tests are included in Appendix D and indicate high levels of zinc and copper.
2020 Maintenance Summary;
Despite the remedial actions taken in the winter of 2019/2020, the 2020 monitoring effort revealed
declining tree numbers across the Parcel. Those actions included Parcel -wide disking, liming, seeding,
and the replanting of approximately five acres within the former footprint of the poultry houses, as
well as selective herbicide treatments across most of the Parcel. The widespread tree mortality
affected seedlings in most monitoring plots and in all planted species.
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Page 3
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

There was no apparent cause for the decline in tree survival (in contrast to the flooding related to
Hurricane Florence in 2018) and no observable sign of physical damage to the dead stems that were
inspected. Field observations throughout the 2019 growing season and into early 2020 indicated that
mortality was not related to animal damage, above -ground insects, or poor weather. The most likely
issue is the existing soil condition of the Parcel. IRS submitted multiple soil samples for analysis and
followed up with state extension agents, county staff, private soil experts, and the previous landowner
regarding the historic herbicide use and turkey litter application.
These tests and conversations indicated that Parcel has elevated copper and zinc levels and a strongly
acidic character. According to the literature reviewed, this can be common in areas where high
amounts of poultry litter have been applied. While the copper and zinc levels are not acutely toxic for
the planted trees, there may have been a stressor; low pH tends to cause more stress to planted stems.
Prior use of the Parcel as a cow pasture also degraded the soils through compaction.
With poor soil health as a primary driver behind tree survival, remedial options were somewhat limited.
In early 2020, IRS completed Parcel -wide replanting with bare -root species at a 680 trees/acre density.
Before planting, a narrow ripping/bedding plow was established to prepare planting rows sitewide.
This plow disturbed about 24" every 8' across the Parcel. It was thought that the bedding action would
release surface compaction and incorporate organic material into the soil. It was anticipated the
ripping portion of the plow would promote deeper root growth and release soil compaction. A narrow
plow was used to minimize the disturbance. IRS documented the remedial planting and coordinated
with DWR staff. Photos of the 2020 remedial work are included in Appendix D.
2021 Maintenance Summary;
During year 4 (2021), vegetation was monitored on September 23, 2021. Year 4 (2021) stems densities
averaged 447 planted hardwood stems per acre (excluding livestakes), with eighteen of the twenty-
two plots meeting success criteria (Table 6, Appendix C). Additionally, all three temporary transects
met success criteria, with an average of 607 stems per acre (Table 7, Appendix C).
No signs of herbivory, easement encroachment, mowing, pruning, or mulching were observed.
Additionally, minimal invasive species were observed on the Parcel.
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
None None
Given the apparent success of IRS' 2020 remedial action plan and replanting, no additional remedial
work was performed during Year 4 (2021).
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Page 4
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

5.0 REFERENCES
Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule - 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (Published November 17, 2014)
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy 15A NCAC 2B .0233,
15A NCAC 02B .0240, and 15A NCAC 02B .0295
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, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Page 5
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

Appendix A.
Site Location Map and Background Tables
Figure 1. Site Location and Service Area
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information & Attributes
Table 5. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Appendices
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

bg
Directions to Parcel;
•[]Take 1-40 East out of Raleigh,
-[]Take Exit 341 for NC-50/NC-55 toward
,C LIS-13/Newton Grove,
C7' .566ft -[]At the traffic circle (1.3 miles), take the
Henderson 4th exit onto LIS-13 N,
•119.4 Miles Turn Left onto Weaver Rd.,
•110.7 Miles Turn Right at Angie Drive,
r
-[]Site is located on the left.
0y ,
I'
ra�tP:t: Ac S'.irA� r: rn�
Butner
Louisburg
IIIIIrobs, 11,
95
E
Durham ti
� n�o ,;r,ff !L-elr;dl�
Falls
Reservoi
543 ft
II I I lill
f
Knightdale ,,yendell
q.
,prings •;layten
Fugu - a
Jagnc
Angier �l Smithfield
Rage n
S anf ord Roc k
Qate Park
Buies
Creek
Lillington
Legend Ervin con:
r'�Il ili
O Project Pin Point
O USGS Neuse 03020201 River Basin Bdry ! �s,
Lump 'y
OService Area - Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset sdt
(Neuse 01 Minus Falls Lake Watershed)
Weaver Farm Bank Parcel
35018'16.01 "N
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment 780 7'44 27"W
P (PpFpg,C&PCO, USGS, FAO, NIPS, NRCAp,-,5ggQ , IGN, Kadaster NIL,
OrdrtAtmaa Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
Mb'pWIndiap© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community m
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC SCALE: 1 in = 54,167 ft
N
Weaver Farm
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211 DATE:3-2018
RALEIGH, NC 27604
Figure 1 - Parcel Location / Service Area
PHONE: [phone] SITE: WF01-000
FAX : [phone]
This map aid au data a,ntamed within are s,ppried bs is wpm n, warranty. P,st,rzaon Systems TLC e.pr,ssiv
disdbims rasp,nslbmtYPome9as rdaoruability fr,msnvdbimsmatmavads.,,t,ft h. vss ormis,ssotmis map. iris
• • ms sots rsspvnsmioty vt ms s,r t, dstsrmms it ms dbta ov this map is o pb ie rim ms vs,rs vssds. Tres map
wt'r,,tsd bs s rv,y data, wr snvwd it bs used bs s,d,. t is ms �s,rs r,spvvsmioH t, obt am prvpsr survey
°a<a'preparedbya°Ceo5ed50Neyer'rnererep°iredby1—
c
Aerial Imagery: ( ) ESRI
Miles
Coordinate System:
0 2.25 4.5 9 13.5 18 NAD_1983_SP_INC _RIPS _3200_Ft.

Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Buffer Zone
Credit Type
Mitigation
Total
Credit
Credit per
Total Credits
Type
Acreage
Ratio
Acre
UT2 Zone A (TOB to
Riparian
Restoration
3.16
1:1
43,560 sq.
137,649.6 sq. ft.
50')
Buffer
ft./acre
UT2 Zone B (51' - 100')
Riparian
Restoration
2.99
1:1
43,560 sq.
130,244.4 sq. ft.
Buffer
ft./acre
Total
Riparian
6.15
267,894.0 sq. ft.
Buffer
UT2 Zone C (101' -
Nitrogen
Restoration
5.26
n/a
2,273.02
11,956.08 lbs.
200)
lbs./acre
Ditches (TOB - 200')
Nitrogen
Restoration
10.10
n/a
2'273.02
lbs./acre
22,957.50 lbs.
Total
Nitrogen
14.64
34,913.58lbs.
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity / Milestone
BPDP Proposed Date
Actual Date
BPDP Approved
NA
July 7, 2017
Parcel purchased in Fee -Simple
June 2017
June 22, 2017
Parcel Protection via conservation easement
June 2017
June 27, 2017
Cattle exclusion / fence construction
June 2017
July —August 2017
Removal of poultry houses / impervious
surfaces
June/July 2017
August —October 2017
Soil preparation
July through November 2017
October— December 2017
Removal of Powerline/Pole
NA
December 2017
Planting
December 2017
December 12t", 2017
As -Built Data Collection
January 2018
December 14t" —16t", 2017
Construction Completion Walkthrough
NA
February 111, 2018
As -Built Report Submittal
January 2018
March 2018
Year 1(2018) Monitoring
October 2018
October 2018
Year 2 (2019) Monitoring
October 2019
November 2019
Year 3 (2020) Monitoring
October 2020
October 2020
Year 4 (2021) Monitoring
October 2021
November 2021
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Appendices
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 3: Project Contact Table
Firm
POC & Address
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Bank Sponsor
Restoration Systems, LLC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
George Howard and John Preyer
919.755.9490
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Designer:
Restoration Systems, LLC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Raymond Holz
919.604.9314
Kenneth Strader; 336.314.2935 780
Construction Contractor:
Strader Fencing Inc
Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592-7756
Mary -Margaret McKinney 252.482.8491
Planting Contractor:
Carolina Silvics
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
Lloyd Glover; 919.422.3392 780 Landmark
Seeding Contractor:
Land Mechanics, Inc.
Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592-7756
Nursery Stock Suppliers:
ArborGen
1.888.888.7158
Baseline Data Collection &
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Grant Lewis; 919.215.1693 218 Snow Ave.
Annual Monitoring
Raleigh, NC 27603
Table 4: Project Baseline Information & Attributes Table
Project Information
Project Name
Weaver Farm
County
Wayne
Project Area (acres)
21.81
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude: 35°18'16.01" N , Longitude: 78744.27" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03020201170010
DWQ Sub -basin
03-04-12
Project Drainage Area, Total Outfall (miles)
0.07 miz
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
< 1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cropland and Pasture
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Appendices
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 5. Planting List
Vegetation Association:
Basic Oak -Hickory Forest
Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods
Acreage: 22.10 Acres
15.02 acres
7.08 acres
Species (bare root = BR)
Spec-ed
Planted
Spec-ed
Planted
White oak (Quercus albo) - BR
2,750
2,750
*Northern red oak (Quercus rubro) - BR
2,750
0
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
0
1,375
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
0
1,375
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) - BR
2,750
2,750
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) - BR
2,750
2,750
Water oak (Quercus nigra) - BR
1,900
1,900
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) - BR
22
1,900
1,900
River birch (Betula nigra) - BR
1,900
1,900
Total (18,600)
11,000
11,000
5,700
5,700
* Due to availability issues, Northern red oak was removed from the proposed planting list. Shumard and cherrybark
oak were used as substitute species.
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Appendices
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Figure 3. Component and Asset
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Appendices
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

Feature 3
- -x+
• '� � Origin Point for UT-2
j
Feature 1 ; —,—,— •—•—•—•—•—•—
UT 2
/ I -•-.-.-.
I
• , �� , , ,�, sus „>.�, . � �.z. _
m
Feature 2
Mitigation Total Credit Credit per
Buffer Zone Credit Type Total Credits
Type Acreage Ratio Acre
Riparian 43,560 sq.
UTZ Zone A (TOB to 50') Buffer Restoration 3.16 1:1 ft./acre 137,649.6 sq. ft.
UTZ Zone B (51'-100') Buffer Riparian Restoration 2.99 1:1 ft./acre 43,560 sq. 130,244.4 sq. ft.
`4 Riparian
Total Buffer 6.15 267,894.0 sq. ft.
UTZ Zone C (101' - 200) Nitrogen Restoration 5.26 n/a 2,273.02 Ibs./acre 11,956.081bs.
—_-
2,273.02
Ditches (TOB- 200') Nitrogen Restoration 10.10 n/a Ibs./acre 22,957.501bs.
Total Nitrogen 14.64 34,913.581bs.
Legend
OFinal Conservation Easement: 22.81 Acres
Top of Bank (Features + UT-2): 0.65 Acres
TOB - 50ft
TOB - 100ft
r r TOB - 200ft
AsBuilt Credit Determination
Stream (UT-2), Zone A JOB to 50'), Riparian Buffer: 3.16 Acres
Stream (UT-2), Zone B (51' - 100'), Riparian Buffer: 2.99 Acres
Stream (UT-2), Zone C (101' - 200'), Nutrient Offset: 5.26 Acres
Surface Water Conveyance, JOB to 200'): 10.10 Acres
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC SCALE: 1 in = 250 ft
ti
Figure
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211 DATE:3-2018
RALEIGH, NC 27604
Component and Asset
PHONE: [phone] SITE: WF01-000
FAX : [phone]
This map and au data a,ntamed within are s,ppried as is wpm ne warranty. Rest,-b— systems TLC e.pressiv
dissiaimsr.sp,nsidmty rot damag�or liability fr,msnydaimsmatmay ans., t of t h.—or mis—of this map. It is
• ' • me sots respensmioty of the user to determine if me data en this map is eempaedie with the users needs. This map aa
ot:
ncreated as s,rvey data not =Fond t de ed as sed,. t is e es,rons s—pmmH am to obt proper s,rvey <a, prepared by a oeensed s,,.y,r, M.re rege�sered ev iaw. m
Service Layer Credits: Aerial Ima er : c ESRI
9 Y I )
Feet Coordinate Sy stem
NAD 1983 SP_NC RIPS 3200 Ft.
0 60 120 240 360 480 — — — — —

Weaver Farm
MY4 (2021) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September 2021)
Plot 2
Plot 4
Weaver Farm Appendix B: Baseline Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table
MY4 Monitoring Report — November 2021

Weaver Farm
MY4 (2021) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September 2021)
Plot 11
Plot 13
Plot 12
Plot 14
Weaver Farm Appendix B: Baseline Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table
MY4 Monitoring Report — November 2021

Weaver Farm
MY4 (2021) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September 2021)
Plot 19
Plot 21
a�
Plot 18
Plot 22
Weaver Farm Appendix B: Baseline Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table
MY4 Monitoring Report — November 2021

Appendix C.
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Planted and Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 7. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8. Planted Vegetation Totals
Year 4 (2021) Planted Stem Height Data
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Appendices
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

s�
0
�
Q
0
O H
^ O
~ a
�
�
m
o
o r
0
Ln
�
c
�
7
0
�
X =
Q
N
No
0
N
O �
^ O
~ a
O
M
V
71
n
o
�
ao
0
o r
0
c
0
c
0
Q m
o
o �
^ o
~ a
�
0
�
n
o
o r
0
c
N
Q m
a
o
N
O �
n �
a
lD
N
W
N
N
o
o r
c
�
NM
X =
V
W
O
�
a
a
N
O �
^
M
V1
W
77
O
•-•
O
a
tO
❑
O
p
M
N
M
�D
O�
V1
C
0
Q
�
u'
N
n o
~ a
o
�
a
o
o �
n
�
m
n;
�
Q m
a
o
N
N
O H
n 10
a
�
7
Z
N
N
M
O
O
�
�
X
No
0
=
Q
y a
N
O
�
N
O �
^ O
~ a
�
17
^
O
�
N
p r
O
�
W
C
'
n
�
N
o �
~ a
r
tD
o r
0
vi
c
Q m
d
o
a
�
N Vf
O
^ O
~
a
M
�D
C
N
N
V
v
H
v
o u
v
_ a
v
N
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v.
v s
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v
v
v
v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v
v
N E
s
s
s
v
L
v
z
v
Y
o
-
o
� -o
s
v
,.
s
Y
o�voo�
E
v
E
oo
°-
>
fl-
a m
v
v
o
�-
o mu
Y
o
s
° -o
-mild
I
E
°
=
E
¢
w
m
Y I
h ,.
m
m
o
o
E E
um
v
v
i m
E
-o
°
�
-
o
N
v
v v
v v
v v
v v
m o
°
v
m
v v
v v
v v°
LL
�
a -
a cf
O' cf
cf O'
O' O'
O' 5
m
>
uw
L w LL LL� h

o
o�
0
c
m
a
X =
N
O
N
O �
n o
a
m
C
N
c
m
`^
m
o r
0
m
�
N
c
m
Q m
O
N
O �
^ O
a
m
iD
N
�
`^
ao
o r
0
o'
0
�
0
Q m
.i a
o
N77
O
o
a
In^
0
00
n
o r
0
�+i
a
c
a
Q m
o
o �
~ a
a
�
o r
a N
n
N
a
c
N
O
X
a N
n
N
N
Q m
O
C
O H
^
N
O
a
V
�
..
4
�l
X
n
m
a m
m
p
m
W
=
N
u'
N
O J
^ 0
~ a
m
a m
m
o
00
m
^
a
c r
0
�
N
�
a
a
m
�
N
Q m
o
a
O �
^ O
a
N
V
�
M
p r
O
�
O
C
Q m
O
O
o �
^ o
~ a
�
0
�
N
p r
O
�
O
C
N
o �
^ o
a
o
Z
n
�
0
�
o r
0
c
Q m
d
o
W
�
N
o �
~ a
00
�
v
_ a
v
N
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v.
v s
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v.
v v
v.
v
v
v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v
v
N E
s
s
s
v
L
v
v
v
o o
a mv�
lIm
um
>
¢
E
m 3
h
-o
,.
v
v v
v v
>
v v
>
v v
m
`v
-
h
h
�.
°
v
w `v
`v `v
`v `v
`v `v
`v `v
o
F
m
v v
v v
v v°
LL
a -
a O'
O' O'
O' O'
O' O'
O' O'
m
>
L w LL LL� h

n H
m
�
O a
a
o
O
a
M
Vt
M
N
C
W
C rl
C
M
rl
C
tD
ao H
j C
o
^
N
O
d
N
�
W
^
^
N
m H
c-I
^
O
8. -
N
� a
N
O
ON
C
N
Q
N H
^
M J
�
O
N
iD
N
�D
M
C N
V1
rl
C
V1
M
N
a
N
tO
c
O
m
^
N
M rl
C
N
W
V1
M rl
^
M V1
M
O O�
rl
C
N
V1 W
C
M
rl
iD
O� N
N
� V1
V1 N
�
�
C
C
M y
�
a
iD
O�
V1
N
M rl
C
N
W
V1
M rl
^
M V1
M
O O�
rl
C
N
Vt W
C
M
rl
�
C
C
^
O
ZL -
O C
Vt
M
M
C N
N
N
o
C
C
v
o
a
N
p r
�
O
C
X =
?
N
Q O
m
c
O
i
N77
o
N
v
a
O
^
7.77
�l
X
p
I�
I
=
Q m
N
o
a
d
iD
^ o
~ a
^
a
tO
v
`o
v
I
o
_ a
N
v v
v v
v v
v-
v v
v v
v v--
v
v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v
v
N E
s
s
v
E
L
o
v
o
v
z
v
o
a mv�
¢`v°
v
`o
o c=o
u
°
-E
mw
K
E
m 3
—
o
N
>
u
> >
u u
> >
u u
> >
u u
> >
u u
— °
m o
o
�.
`v
`v `v
`v `v
`v `v
`v `v
o
m
v v
v v
v v°
LL
� �
a -
a O'
O' I O'
O' 6
6 6
6 5
t0
>

Table 7. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data 2021 MY4
Species
50m x 2m Temporary Plot
T-1
Bearing — 451
Start coordinates:
35.305483,-78.125822
End coordinates:
35.305107,-78.126125
T-2
Bearing — 2801
Start coordinates:
35.304545,-78.126643
End coordinates:
35.3045791-78.127191
T-3
Bearing — 3411
Start coordinates:
35.304914,-78.128578
End coordinates:
35.305251,-78.128942
Acer rubrum
1
Betula nigra
1
Celtis occidentalis
2
Cornus ammomum
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7
6
16
Liriodendron tulipifera
2
1
Platanus occidentalis
1
Prunus serotina
1
Quercus lyrata
1
Quercus nigra
Quercus phellos
1
3
Quercus spp.
1
Total Stems
13
13
19
Total Stems/Acre
526
526
769
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Appendices
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 8. Planted Vegetation Totals 2021 MY4
Plot #
Planted Stems/Acre*
Success Criteria Met?
1
445
Yes
2
485
Yes
3
607
Yes
4
243
No
5
607
Yes
6
607
Yes
7
243
No
8
405
Yes
9
607
Yes
10
688
Yes
11
486
Yes
12
405
Yes
13
405
Yes
14
445
Yes
15
769
Yes
16
445
Yes
17
445
Yes
18
81
No
19
364
Yes
20
364
Yes
21
648
Yes
22
41
No
T-1
526
Yes
T-2
526
Yes
T-3
769
Yes
Average Planted Stems/Acre
466
Yes
* Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) was planted and counted during year 4 (2021) vegetation monitoring.
However, this species does not count toward riparian buffer success. Loblolly pine was not included in
this table's stem density calculations.
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Appendices
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

Plot
Scientific Name
X
y
Height (cm)
DBH (cm)
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1.2
0.4
35
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3.9
3.4
22
1
Quercus phellos
3.6
0.5
38
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6.8
3.1
79
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.1
1.8
285
5
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.3
3.8
160
1.5
1
Pinus taeda
8.0
1.6
51
1
Quercus phellos
5.9
1.9
58
1
Quercus phellos
6.0
4.7
55
1
Quercus phellos
6.2
7.0
44
1
Quercus alba
9.5
8.4
72
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1.3
8.1
29
2
Platanus occidentalis
1.1
0.4
120
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0.1
1.9
57
2
Platanus occidentalis
0.0
2.4
103
2
Quercus phellos
2.7
0.8
59
2
Quercus lyrata
5.1
2.2
50
2
Rhus glabra
7.9
1.2
98
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.9
3.5
119
2
Rhus glabra
6.7
5.0
48
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.4
8.1
70
2
Quercus phellos
0.4
6.9
33
2
Quercus shumardii
7.9
7.5
91
2
Quercus alba
0.5
7.1
54
3
Pinus taeda
0.5
1.3
98
3
Quercus
6.5
0.1
74
3
Pinus taeda
7.7
1.8
77
3
Quercus alba
8.7
4.4
21
3
Rhus glabra
9.7
3.6
22
3
Quercus lyrata
6.7
4.6
12
3
Rhus glabra
7.7
4.7
50
3
Quercus nigra
6.3
4.6
57
3
Quercus alba
6.1
6.7
44
3
Quercus
5.8
6.7
81
3
Quercus phellos
5.4
6.3
37
3
Ptelea trifoliata
5.5
9.3
30
3
Quercus lyrata
5.1
9.5
62
3
Quercus phellos
3.8
8.0
41
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.9
5.2
52
3
Quercus lyrata
0.0
5.4
112
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
1.2
0.5
32
4
Quercus pagoda
1.4
3.4
50
4
Quercus
0.4
4.8
52
4
Pinus taeda
6.8
0.5
49
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
7.4
2.4
62
4
Quercus pagoda
7.3
3.3
131
4
Acer rubrum
7.7
6.2
62
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.4
5.5
64
5
Quercus pagoda
1 0.4
1 0.4
121

Plot
Scientific Name
X
y
Height (cm)
DBH (cm)
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.7
1.5
71
5
Quercus phellos
4.2
3.8
31
5
Quercus alba
7.7
1.4
41
5
Quercus phellos
6.8
4.3
30
5
Quercus phellos
9.6
5.2
49
5
Celtis
7.0
7.1
67
5
Quercus
5.8
9.0
98
5
Quercus
9.4
7.7
37
5
Quercus lyrata
5.1
8.0
32
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
1.3
9.6
22
5
Quercus lyrata
0.5
7.7
18
5
Celtis
1.5
6.1
73
5
Celtis
4.3
6.3
35
5
Celtis occidentalis
2.2
4.7
63
6
Quercus rubra
1.8
2.1
139
0.5
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.2
1.2
75
6
Quercus phellos
5.2
3.3
25
6
Quercus rubra
6.2
2.2
24
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.0
1.2
91
6
Acer rubrum
8.2
8.4
42
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
9.3
5.9
44
6
Celtis
9.8
8.7
48
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
1.8
7.7
70
6
Rhus glabra
2.9
1 9.8
110
6
Rhus glabra
0.0
9.1
133
6
Quercus
1.7
5.5
79
6
Quercus
3.9
6.5
47
6
Quercus
4.2
5.8
51
6
Quercus phellos
5.8
9.0
190
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3.0
3.8
42
7
Pinus taeda
5.4
3.3
33
7
Quercus lyrata
5.5
6.1
33
7
Quercus lyrata
7.8
5.5
42
7
Quercus lyrata
2.3
6.7
40
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0.8
4.7
22
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.1
2.9
45
8
Quercus phellos
0.2
0.5
82
8
Quercus phellos
1.0
3.3
82
8
Quercus phellos
3.2
4.5
49
8
Quercus phellos
7.3
4.6
37
8
Quercus phellos
9.7
4.4
73
8
Quercus
5.4
7.6
35
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7.9
7.8
36
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10.0
7.7
60
8
Platanus occidentalis
1.1
9.3
74
8
Prunus serotina
2.9
7.5
30
9
Quercus pagoda
0.2
0.5
172
1
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.0
1.1
81
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.3
4.2
61

Plot
Scientific Name
X
y
Height (cm)
DBH (cm)
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0.6
4.4
52
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.0
3.9
66
9
Liriodendron tulipifera
7.1
1.1
25
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6.7
4.0
88
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.0
4.0
49
9
Platanus occidentalis
6.7
6.6
125
9
Platanus occidentalis
9.5
6.6
50
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.7
10.0
32
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0.6
7.8
103
9
Quercus
0.4
9.0
20
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3.8
9.1
21
9
Platanus occidentalis
1.2
7.1
40
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0.0
0.4
255
3
10
Quercus
2.5
2.0
48
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.0
0.0
72
10
Platanus occidentalis
0.1
4.5
36
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.1
5.0
60
10
Quercus lyrata
5.4
2.5
49
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7.5
1.0
44
10
Quercus
8.0
3.0
51
10
Quercus phellos
6.5
5.5
95
10
Platanus occidentalis
5.3
7.6
141
2
10
Platanus occidentalis
7.7
8.4
280
6
10
Platanus occidentalis
9.7
8.6
159
0.5
10
Quercus
4.3
10.0
51
10
Platanus occidentalis
1.0
7.0
141
0.2
10
Platanus occidentalis
3.3
7.2
100
10
Quercus
1.2
6.2
82
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3.7
6.7
150
3
11
Quercus phellos
0.4
4.9
50
11
Platanus occidentalis
6.8
1.9
116
11
Platanus occidentalis
8.8
4.2
251
3
11
Quercus shumardii
6.5
0.3
52
11
Quercus phellos
6.3
2.8
60
11
Quercus lyrata
6.2
6.8
47
11
Quercus phellos
8.0
8.9
53
11
Quercus phellos
5.5
9.1
52
11
Quercus phellos
2.3
9.0
57
11
Quercus lyrata
1.6
7.1
67
11
Quercus
4.0
6.6
63
11
Quercus phellos
7.2
5.1
80
12
Platanus occidentalis
1.3
1.7
129
12
Liriodendron tulipifera
0.3
4.5
71
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3.6
5.4
82
12
Platanus occidentalis
8.1
1.4
145
0.2
12
Platanus occidentalis
7.9
3.6
181
1.5
12
Platanus occidentalis
7.5
5.8
125
12
Platanus occidentalis
7.0
7.5
125
12
Quercus phellos
2.3
5.8
75

Plot
Scientific Name
X
y
Height (cm)
DBH (cm)
12
Rhus glabra
1.6
8.1
88
12
Quercus
4.0
7.3
64
13
Platanus occidentalis
0.9
3.4
56
13
Acer rubrum
6.3
0.7
45
13
Acer rubrum
5.8
3.3
30
13
Prunus serotina
7.6
6.6
149
0.5
13
Prunus serotina
8.1
9.1
116
13
Platanus occidentalis
5.5
9.1
145
0.5
13
Quercus
3.1
9.4
70
13
Liriodendron tulipifera
1.4
9.3
52
13
Quercus
2.9
6.1
64
13
Quercus alba
0.1
9.1
50
14
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1.8
2.2
210
2
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
0.4
5.1
130
14
Pinus taeda
3.1
3.8
41
14
Quercus lyrata
5.1
0.3
98
14
Quercus
6.6
1.0
96
14
Quercus nigra
10.0
1.1
119
14
Quercus
8.7
1.8
85
14
Prunus serotina
7.9
4.6
44
14
Quercus nigra
8.8
5.8
45
14
Quercus phellos
5.8
10.0
80
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
5.2
7.6
54
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
1.2
8.5
84
15
Quercus
1.6
0.9
114
15
Quercus
2.6
1.1
88
15
Acer rubrum
3.7
1.7
58
15
Quercus phellos
3.6
2.8
100
15
Acer rubrum
2.8
2.8
70
15
Quercus phellos
5.0
1.1
125
15
Quercus nigra
6.7
2.6
162
0.1
15
Quercus
5.7
4.2
194
0.1
15
Taxodium distichum
8.5
3.9
191
1
15
Quercus
8.4
4.3
59
15
Quercus rubra
6.4
6.0
165
0.5
15
Quercus nigra
7.0
6.5
143
0.5
15
Taxodium distichum
5.4
9.2
150
0.7
15
Quercus phellos
1.4
6.2
172
0.5
16
Quercus
0.8
2.9
42
16
Liriodendron tulipifera
3.5
3.2
100
16
Carya
3.9
3.8
143
0.5
16
Quercus phellos
6.7
0.9
52
16
Quercus rubra
6.7
3.4
61
16
Quercus phellos
7.7
0.0
55
16
Quercus phellos
8.6
2.2
64
16
Quercus phellos
7.1
8.8
42
16
Quercus rubra
4.1
7.2
110
16
Quercus alba
5.2
9.8
85
16
Quercus nigra
2.3
8.3
223
3

Plot
Scientific Name
X
y
Height (cm)
DBH (cm)
17
Quercus nigra
0.8
0.5
166
2
17
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3.9
0.2
90
17
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3.3
3.4
240
2
17
Liriodendron tulipifera
2.1
5.3
72
17
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6.2
3.9
69
17
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6.3
1.5
117
17
Quercus pagoda
7.5
0.8
192
1.5
17
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.6
4.2
165
1
17
Liriodendron tulipifera
9.3
5.3
112
17
Pinus taeda
10.0
8.5
105
17
Pinus taeda
9.0
8.1
83
17
Betula nigra
5.4
9.3
203
2
17
Liriodendron tulipifera
3.3
8.7
110
18
Quercus pagoda
6.3
6.0
34
18
Quercus pagoda
9.0
6.1
50
19
Quercus rubra
2.8
0.5
215
2
19
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1.1
4.9
310
6
19
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
4.3
4.7
305
5
19
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6.6
3.9
280
3
19
Quercus shumardii
6.0
8.5
280
2.5
19
Quercus alba
7.8
9.0
130
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0.0
1.0
159
3
20
Quercus phellos
0.1
3.1
209
3
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1.8
3.1
245
3
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.1
1.0
238
3
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
0.0
4.2
23
20
Quercus pagoda
8.1
0.9
89
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.9
4.4
248
3
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
4.1
9.1
255
4
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1.7
8.8
218
2
21
Quercus
2.6
0.0
108
21
Quercus
2.7
0.7
170
0.1
21
Quercus
5.0
0.9
153
0.5
21
Quercus
4.8
1.5
69
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1.8
3.8
235
2
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3.5
4.3
270
2
21
Cornus amomum
1.8
4.2
50
21
Pinus taeda
6.3
3.5
40
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.1
3.7
259
4
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6.3
5.8
212
2
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.6
1.3
134
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.6
3.4
133
21
Quercus rubra
7.3
9.0
250
3
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
4.8
6.1
275
4
21
Cornus amomum
4.6
7.9
110
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.3
6.2
259
4
21
Quercus alba
7.5
1.2
99
22
Quercus phellos
0.6
1.0
180
0.8
22
Pinus taeda
1.1
7.4
43

Appendix D.
Remedial Activities
Weaver Farm Year 4 (2021) Monitoring Appendices
Weaver Farm MBI Neuse River WS Restoration Systems, LLC

Ray Holz
From:
Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:25 PM
To:
Ray Holz
Cc:
Matthew Harrell
Subject:
RE: [External] RE: Weaver Farm Year 1 review -
Hey Raymond,
By copy of this correspondence, the Year 1 monitoring report is approved and the remediation plan with the
modifications noted below is also approved. Based on your performance bond #22BSBHT4261, the bond term ends with
the approval of the Year 1 Monitoring Report. Therefore, please provide DWR with a continuation certificate extending
the bond through next year's monitoring year. Once I receive confirmation of renewal, I will issue a credit release letter.
Thank you,
Katie
From: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:09 PM
To: Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Matthew Harrell <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Weaver Farm Year 1 review-
• MA, real .email. Do not click links or open attachments unless y;ou.��rif iecl 5cficl a.li. �gspiciouS.e ail as a .atl' , a e to•
. .
Katie — thank you for the review and for catching the cypress - that was an oversight on our part. Although I would love
to pant cypress, because they will not count towards success, we will instead plant 1,000 Quercus appropriate to the
target natural community (300 Q. laurifolia, 300 Q. lyrata, 400 Q. michauxii).
As for the maple, we understand and agree with the general DWR policy of not planting red maple (Acer rubrum), given
its abundance and prolific nature. However, in this specific case, a portion of the site (Zone 1 on the Remedial Action &
Maintenance Map) demonstrates such impaired soil conditions that we believe including red maple is justified and
beneficial.
While we have completed intensive soil remediation in this —5-acre area (lime, disc, herbaceous seed), there is still some
question about how fertile the soil is where the turkey houses area once stood. In the 2018 monitoring season, this area
was notable for poor tree survival and sparse herbaceous cover.
Red maple is known to tolerate a wide variety of site conditions, even growing on poor sites such as mining spoils. We
consider its inclusion in the planting mix an important part of reclaiming this particular area in a timely fashion. We plan
to plant 200 red maple/acre in Zone 1. That will constitute 1/3rd of the stems/acre planted this year in that zone. The
additional 400 stems/acre will be a mix of the other species on our remedial planting list. The combination will allow
Zone 1 to meet success criteria moving forward by establishing an adequately dense and diverse native hardwood
community despite the difficult soil condition.
Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you would to discuss any part of this plan in greater detail.
Sincerely,
Raymond Holz.
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel:[phone] cell:919.604.9314 1 fax:[phone]

email: [e-mail]
From: Merritt, Katie[mailto:katie.merritt@ncdenrgav]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 2:58 PM
To: Ray Holz <rholz a restorationsystems.com>
Subject: Weaver Farm Year 1 review -
Hey Raymond,
I have finalized my review of the Year 1 Monitoring Report for the Weaver Farm Mitigation Site. Thank you for providing
a remedial action plan in response to the impacts to the site associated with Hurricane Florence. I do have concerns
with the proposed planting plan, considering not all the trees are part of the original approved planting plan. It is
proposed in the report, to plant the following species: Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus nigra, Ulmus
Americana and Taxodium distichum. Three of the five species chosen, are not part of the approved planting plan. Acer
rubrum is not usually accepted as a preferable species to plant on riparian buffer sites due to its ability to colonize
rapidly, potentially outcompete other planted stems and possibly produce a monoculture. Ulmus Americana is an
acceptable species to plant on this site and DWR approves the use of this tree in the remediation plan. Taxodium
distichum is not a hardwood tree and would not be allowed to use towards the performance standards, which require
"native hardwood tree species".
Due to the special nature of this site, DWR will allow alternative species of trees to be planted for the
remediation. However, RS is required to provide DWR with a specific reason as to why Acer rubrum should be planted
on this site. This must include site -specific characteristics that warrant the use of Acer rubrum over other species
approved in the planting plan in the BPDP. Nursery availability of stems will not be considered a reasonable explanation
to use Acer rubrum on the site. Additionally, RS must acknowledge in writing, they understand that Taxodium distichum
will be excluded from counting towards the performance standards on the site. Otherwise, RS must choose a different
species from the original planting plan in the BPDP.
Once I have received a response to this email, I will be able to issue a credit release.
Thank You,
Katie
""please note my phone number has changed"
Katie Merritt
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: 919-707-3637
Work Cell: 919-500-0683
Website: http:llportal.ncdenr.ordweb/wq/401bufferpermitting
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records L,aw and may be disclosed to third parties.

Rav Holz
From: Ray Holz
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 12:23 PM
To: Katie Merritt - NC DENR - DWR ([e-mail])
Subject: Weaver Farm - Remedial Action Implementation Summary
Attachments: Weaver Farm —Remedial Action Plan_Implementation Summary.pdf
Katie —
RS completed the remedial action work at Weaver Farm on February 24t''. Please find attached a summary of the work
completed. I have also updated a copy to the DWR edocs website.
At your earliest convenience, I would like to schedule a site visit to both Weaver Farm and Pancho.
Thank you for the time,
RH
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel:[phone] cell:919.604.9314 1 fax:[phone]
email: [e-mail]

Weaver Farm — Remedial Action Plan Implementation

Weaver Farm — Remedial Action Plan Implementation
Species List of replanting
Zone 1
# of Stem
Date Completed
Red Maple
1,000
02/24/19
River Birch
500
02/24/19
Yellow Poplar
1,000
02/24/19
Overcup Oak
500
02/24/19
Water Oak
500
02/24/19
American Elm
500
02/24/19
Bald Cypress
300
02/24/19
White Oak
500
02/24/19
Zone 2
River Birch
500
02/24/19
Yellow Poplar
1,000
02/24/19
Overcup Oak
300
02/24/19
Water Oak
500
02/24/19
American Elm
400
02/24/19
Bald Cypress
1,000
02/24/19
Total 8,500

Weaver Farm — Remedial Action Plan Implementation Photo Date: 02/24/2019
Herbaceous establishment in footprint of old turkey houses
Herbaceous establishment in footprint of old turkey houses

,'9 to �,►
} a
out v
mw
4z
Ins, ` r! �..;�. r i

Weaver Farm — Remedial Action Plan Implementation Photo Date: 02/24/2019
Herbaceous establishment & replanting in footprint of old turkey houses
Replanting in Zone 2 outside of old turkey houses (near Vegetation Plot 7)

Weaver Farm — Remedial Action Plan Implementation Photo Date: 02/24/2019
Replanting in Zone 2 outside of old turkey houses (near Vegetation Plot 12)
Replanting in Zone 2 outside of old turkey houses (near Vegetation Plot 10 & 11)

O
O
N
J
LL
O
Z
i
O
O
(o
co
C
N 0
O fC
O p p
CZ Zi
—
Z
M
O
Z
cn
a
cn
W
(O
C
N 0
O m
O p p
CZ Z
Z
M
O
Z
cn
a
cn
W
CL
(0
N U)
co
m 0 0
m 0 0
0
O co N
2 m U
>, Z
m
Z
LO
o
M
Z
o
p
O
Mn
7
Uo CD—
7
Uo CD
5,
m m
>
a
Q
7
LO
(07
—
M
U
U
rn
t(
NO O
Q
N
NO CD
Q
O
>
a
N
rn
C
N
�
Q
m
m
N
N
c
—
N
rn
c
N
o
N
U
N
N
N
U
N
N
fC
N
m
M
N
U
Q
:2
U
Q
O
a415
cn
—
cn
C
cn
—
c
C
-
m
0
NCD
N
Z
2 0 0
Q
Z
tm
2 0 0
Q
E
(0
r-_
co
c
O
N Z3
_ 1 U O
O
0o
L Z
0
N
C
ac
Y o o
4 CD CD
O
o mtm
D
CO
cn
U
C
LO
Cn
N
cn
(tm
m
C
�
O CD,
�
O O
N
_
U
N
a
o
N
a
o
N
3
co co
co
"
im
a
"
cm
2
ci
O o0o
+-• N N
N
O
N
�_
tm
O
N
tm
� (M
I�
Z O
E
o
m
M
Z O
E
o
m
Ln
L N N
N
O'
co
C
U
M
0
C
U
Ln
— Iz
X O O
w
�
O
Z
Z
O.
U
N
N
U M O
Z
Y
y
U O
Z
Y
co
N
E V
Q
E
N O O
E
0
N CD C)E
co
cn d'
J
C
U
J
C
U
cN
C
O
U
y
O
CO
—co
O
M
M
a
d
N
a
d
(O
~
m
m
E
E
rn
C
C
C
lot
O
p
Lu 2
Z
Q
p
W�
Z
rL
LA
r
a
r
a
i
O E
m
m
IL
/�
C
O O
O O
O
O O
E
E
m m
W
U
Q
N
E
E
�
m m
W
U
Q
N
w
O
v
O._ _
0
O
v
O._ _
0
CO
; —y
U N
cn
U N
O)cn
tm
m
m
Mn
>
C
C
EO
i ♦^ C
d v♦ J
U
U
rn
c,4
U
U
C6
��UMER SER pt��S
N
Q
�:
r
r
Q
$�
>`
_
c'�
x c
jm
>
N
N
t0
N
°•
lcn
°•
o
o��6
�
E
y
r
�
r,-
O
y
E
r
�
=
�
o
Z
M3WLaVA3�
LL
J
I
tC
fn
J
m
N O
N
E
O E
L O
,(-- U
Q
N �
L �
0) LL
O 2
m O
E U
m
O
H
N c
O O
Co m
c U
E
0) Z
m N
c �
m },
E E
O
m�
E
O 0)
c �
O �
m0
O }•
m N
N �
L �
O al
� N
E �
E
m
0
O
Q
N

O
N_
O
J
fn
LLL
?
C.
N
O
N
m
rto
o
m
i
QN
i
N
O
C E
7 N
UE U O O
U' V N U U fn
Otf Q m O O co
U m m
'O — n a) a) U
O� )
a) a) N E X N E
Z E U a) X >
� o oa 0 o a) —c aOC)
� v0—
a) 000-OMZ3, wmmp .O O c _0 w Q
.Fa 'ca)m U U a)
X
U Q UUm m ( _ a) au
m _0
O O 'OX aO O 2)� 5 O00 ON a) oU U aQ Q Q oO E E 2 2 E E C (n C
O U a s (n (n N—
U
C
N Z
o Q Q W)
W 7 fA O1 ? C C C C �i M O — Q
U fA m CC
QOOOODUUW2Y`1222222�ZZZO C.aav)0iNN
C
O m
>
y U)m
m N
O O Q
L C
a) .0
aU) m
O O
O
OL i
a) M ��
U) ++
y o 0 w
7 "O Ln ui M
U
i
U
m o
~
Q
=
O M pCD
C N n p
4 C
O
U) 0 0 C
-O L a) �. i
� >j
5,
C D
U zi OY
m r)
a) y
a) C N
O m U)
N
=
N
C i
O 0\
C O
M 0 0 0 y
a) =
a+
1
E
y
_ >
y
L
> o a)
U 'N
0 a)
O
M U)
O
O
m
a) cn m
O U
i
N m>
-p m C Q
y C a)
O
ch O
a
y
0 O O
y E U
Q
O W
O
-
C
=
N N
L
�_a N E Z
N
`0
Q
O
C
m m
tm
C—�
O fq
L U
a=) Z =
O
—Z
.0U)
rym� U) O U)
U)
,w O �N
C
N
a) (n
a) W i
7
Lo
U
O 1O O
0 z
o
\
}' ^
}
3
O
0
> U) 0= U)
_ y
a�i
o
U) �n
ci
!3
i�
C c N
y O—
C—
i�
C y
N
N
�
U=>
}
O
O '—
v op
m
M
o
=
a)
m m
U)
a)
U
a 0 0 U) —
Q E °) M
C `6 m
m
Z
a)
!4
O CO C 'E '�
y N M a)
O
fq
� C
Q Q N
r
z o Q N
N a)
M
rz
a
is
N N
C
m O m L o
in c� M a) N
(B z
i
E
m - M
a)
a) 0_
+� a) =-0
_
a) Z , y-E
_ _
m O
p
U
QN
�
tD
is o_ �N
m `oa
`�
i
fn
0 N=
N
7
y
U E N Q C
U) Q
(n g m fn
(E V) C
fl- p
V) O L
3
m
> L
�
U) .L
M
Q m
; O m-
U
O
m
c)
w
Npo.
CO
W>
O
O N
O
� p
W
U QX O
L
O
r
E
a0 O N
O OU)'�C
o
O L
>
C
a
y
a+
L L 0=
'�
O
O U U)M M Q
N
a) a) .�
+�+
_g
_-
O 1 a)
O CL
Q
�C
N
) m
,
O
Q 0
-0 L C
a)
_
d
N
O
O y N
y
N
OR
N
O-
CU
Q O U
G M
O
Q
O
L C E p
O � M
V a) CN
m a)
L
co
E m
O Q-
M
U O
°)
O
=
a Q O O
L
a) o 0
— o 0
Mn
L
N E
N
E y-0 L
y
OU
0 M y
Q
C l!') C
O LO
_
'— p t—- N
p p
0
m a)
>
—' N
y
U) N Q L
N
U C M Q
U)
y\L
0 U)
a)
U) >
Oa)
M
-0
C�+
u "O
a
O O
Q U
C
L
p O
>U) C
L)
r
O- N
O O a) N
U
M
M U) >
a)
U
y
y
a)
L
0 .� a)
- U
a)
L �O O
N
_Q
m a)
d
W
C
Q
U Q N
N N N
L M O O
OU +J C a) >
m N
X=
a) >
y
M m
L
m N C C
m O a) U
N=
M
a) m
N>
Z
O L0 y Li
— —
Q' O m m 0
LL C C C
Q'
E
—
H
—
F L m

=
\
7
/
\
K
LL
2 0
o m
E¥
]{
£ z
z
0
z
c
m
a-
cn
w
®
2 0
a Q
E a
]{
£ Z
z
0
z
cn
m
a-
cn
w
zco
CD
co CD
k
%
k
Mn
B
&
uo
o
>
J
>
«
-
k
CDu
3
-
k
_
%
No
a
r
�o
a
w
_
N
CD
_
N
m
2
2
2
N\
2
m
&
F
F
N\
/
f
%
k
%
m
04
®
''
k
u
k
u
-
5
\ 7
ƒ
®
cn
2
2
®2
2
2
% ¥
G
2
/ )
g
g
\
.
/
_
.
/
_
2
C
tm
��
�
��
0
��o
°
\ \
&
/
/
\
g
§
2
0=
o=
\
R
°
©
t
§
§
km
cn
(0m
g
§
No
�
°o
■
E
§
tmtm
E
§
u
2
2
2
E
Z CD
M
�
\
(0
m
z
z
/
CD.
q CD CDCO
b CD CD2
G
®
\§
2 6 6
E
§
2 6 6
E
q
a
nC
Cu
Q
#
—
2
—
#
—
coCL
#
#
E
E
0
E
E
§
E°$
2
k/$
2
L/
Lq
2
C
\
Lu
2
\
LU
2
\
2
-
2
0
-
$
w
k®
E
$
w
k
)
}~°
[
2
u
2
u
$\\(\
E
0\
%
\
w
2§°
g.2
u a
t
b/a
&
Cl)
CL
/
/
\
/
§
g
2
w
u
2
w
u
/
§0
.
<
2
.
°
p ^
/
0 %
k
/
{
k
.
cla
=
§/
7§
7
K
§
7§
7
z
2
m
_j w
w
m
-
w
f

O
O
Cn
CD
LL
pm
C
N
N
O
N
a)
O
y
C
y
fC
N
i
QN
i
N
y
C E
O _ _
Q Q
U E O a) O O
co
N co
O O
U N E U X
>, >, CL >, X X — a)
a) a)
N N 0) y N a) N U O O
cUi cUi N Z3 a) O O O — y X
O O O X a) O w N N O = `o m- u�6i a) .—
O O
C 0 0 N � C �y L 0 (6 N>> N" a) E N .0 � L L .c N�>
m W W CO Q M U W W (LU O 0) (6 (6 0 O Z_ a) O Q Q �p X
U `..' `..' Q U `..' c c 'O O O w .— C 'O
X O O o N O X a) 0 0 O N C C N ++ O- 2)� L L zi O
a) o o U U a) Q Q Q o C y C O U Q Q y y N—
U
C
N Z
o Q Q
CCCzC0OO CC
¢mmUUUwxYQ
Y222222�zz0 .aav)iNQ N
C
O
y >,.— U) (B
(B N
a) Q
Q
N o
L C
C
�_
N y
m
O O
0
O UL
OL i
N (B a-C
Q U) ++
y O o N
7 "O Lo Lo a)
U
i
i
U
(B O
~
y C_
p O p=
C a) n p
4 C
O
CD
U) O CD
'U a)
C:
U Q
B
a) U)
a) -0
-MN U)
N
Oy
CY
o
\-0
OZ
E
O
U)
Lo O
a)O
_
y+
>
O
a) --I:- CY
x
a)
U)
U)O
> O a)
U 'N
0 C
O C
M U)
a) O
O
a) (n m
O U
N m
-Q M C Q
y
. C a)
O
ch O
) a
O
C L
a) 0 0
a) a) U)
y U
w C
QQ
O W
O)
C
a)
N
-0 U) E Z
L
yr N
-0
Q
C
m mO
fC
7
i— ay+
O 0Lo
L U
i —
— Z
O
O O
a
U y U)
N m >,
O
U) i
3
C
rz
.N
O O O N M
O
(A
U) m U
L
E 73
> U)=
V U
O
—
(n U)
y
C
U)N
N
d
V CO
�� "O
"O
N
(a m
U C
a O p y—
Q N M
C co m
m
z N
a)
m
O CO C .�
N N � N
0
o� O
415
r
o Q N
N a)
rz
a
is
N N
C
N L
N (B a) N
(B z
a
(B
a) 0_
a) -0
_
a) Z U) t
i O
Q
U C E
Q N
M
N Q
m U) U)
w o 0
3
'� a)
—
�Q
d
C Q
C: mco
; QC
>, N U
O
ry��
C a)
—c M
O L
0-
aC�)
OE
a)YN
LL
,-
O
O N
CD p
O m
OL
LL
LUU>U Oo
XO
)
zwO
Q
w aw�
-
>
o
a
ya)L
o a-0
O U D
ow
L C
=
O L
i
j
a
Q
O
U) m
O N
a) a) .O
� L
V
y
�
_'
O a)
O C C
x
N
U) m
C:
Q
O�o 0
73 L
-0N C
M
O N
yy
N
lN
Q�
Q O
m
m
n
�
C
O
O
O U
m a)_
MN
N O p
S
O
�CQQ
U
Oy
Q E
o
Q N
U)
a) m
D
p M
w U ay)�
o -0-0
om
a)o
aa))o�
Y
O—
r
(B O 'N
C L 0) a) U p
aa)) OL N
O
a)
M
>
C
O
a)
O a) U`
�_ y
O .0
O
m U O
p a) C c
o
N
d U
a) U
O
Q
>O
Q0U
2
O
Q
U
0)N
p
r
U
Q
O O
a)
U)U)�
°i
a)U
p
aaOU
Q O
_
M a)
a
C
_BE
N Q N
Q
C
N
L
a)
O a)
a) — L N C C
m O a) U
a)
a) m
y
L >
Z
O LL — .U) LL
Q' �O m m O
LL C C C:wE
H
H M

Weaver Farm —Yr. 3 (2020) Remedial Action Plan Implementation
A complete replant of the site with bare -root stock at a rate of 680 trees/acre will be conducted this
planting season. Before planting, a narrow set ripping/bedding plow will be used to prepare planting
rows sitewide. This plow will disturb about 24" wide every 8' across the site. The bedding action will
release surface compaction and incorporate organic material into the soil. The ripping portion of the
plow will promote deeper root growth and release deeper compaction. A narrow plow will be used to
minimize the disturbance. In addition, lime will be applied sitewide. IRS has secured and plans to plant
the following species.
Species
Number
Acer rubrum
1500
Celtis occidentalis
100
Celtis laevigata
500
Cornus amomum
300
Liriodendron tulipifera
3,000
Pinus taeda
2,000
Platanus occidentalis
3,000
Prunus laurocerasus
500
Prunus serotina
500
Ptelea trifoliate
500
Quercus lyrata
800
Quercus phellos
2,500
Quercus shumardii
700
Rhus glabra
500
Viburnum dentatum
500
Totals:
16900
*RS recognizes that Pinus taeda would not count under the CMB rule, we're simply trying to see if
anything will grow.
IRS is in the process of collecting baseline data, which will be detailed in the Yr. 3 Monitoring report
along with an end of the year typical vegetation monitoring survey.
Remedial Work
Ripping/bedding plow
Planting
Soil Amendments
Baseline Tree Counts
Date Completed
Week of March 16th , 2020
March 241h, 2020
Ongoing
By end of April 2020

Page 2

Weaver Farm —Yr. 3 (2020) Remedial Action Plan Implementation Photo Date: 04/02/2020
Ripping/bedding work done by plow
Page 3

Weaver Farm —Yr. 3 (2020) Remedial Action Plan Implementation
Ripping/bedding work done by plow
Photo Date:04/02/2020
j
f
�4,40
S.
-
r-
fps .• F A o
t
Page 4

Weaver Farm —Yr. 3 (2020) Remedial Action Plan Implementation Photo Date: 04/02/2020
Ripping/bedding work done by plow
Page 5

Weaver Farm —Yr. 3 (2020) Remedial Action Plan Implementation
Ripping/bedding work done by plow & planting details
Photo Date: Date:04/02/2020
4
vela° t� � Tl
44
Surviving planted stem from 111
remedial workZr
Y M1
TV
- � � _ "� Y `�t � /,•t�� .,� � � 1, _ 'x {�1.aT
fil
Page 6

Weaver Farm —Yr. 3 (2020) Remedial Action Plan Implementation Photo Date: 04/02/2020
Planting details
White arrow on replanted stems _
r
AM
34
5-1
71
Z.
Y y
— s
41
Y
Wmizipow—
ew ::
�a
�a
1-0 y".`r •uk�Y� C� �y�=.e -7��6� �`�q �, ^ym'f�+��f�•.�y't ti� �� '�
Bare root planting, March 241h 2020
Page 7

Weaver Farm —Yr. 3 (2020) Remedial Action Plan Implementation Photo Date: 04/02/2020
Ripping/bedding work done by plow
White arrow on replanted stems
V 1y4
d
Bare root planting, March 24', 2020
White arrow on replanted stems
� 7"t-,
jBare root planting, March 2411, 2020
MEFTO
Page 8